WoT - LoTr??

[baalzamon]

Thank you SBoydW and Master of the Blades. i was scared when i started this forum. I am a major LotR fan and i love WoT. as SBoydW said, tolkien is the father of modern fantasy. the world of middle earth is amazing, he developed a legit language. Tolkien wrote about middle earth for one reason, as he says in a letter to his friend milton waldman, to give england a mythology. He is the reason why elves live in the forest and dwarves in the caves and mountains. without him elves would be constrained to the north pole making toys. he created fantasy, before him there was only mythology (different from fantasy). Robert Jordan is an amazing author. however, he is still only a pupil of tolkien, as all fantasy authors are.

[kiransedai]

RJ is definitely inspired by LOTR but his world is far more detailed and peopled by a larger variety.Moreover women have a definite presence and importance in the WOT which I had found strangely lacking in LOTR.The best part is that there is no sense of disappointment when one book finishes because one has the comfort of knowing there is another to look forward to.All the characters have taken on the feel of old friends waiting for one.I am reading KOD at present.I would like to know more about the basis for Aiels and the Seanchan.I keep trying to draw parallels with the world today.

[Werthead]

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

 

Well, it is now. It has already sold at least ten times as many copies a WoT with just seven books (compared to thirteen, including New Spring and the Big White Book).

 

He is the reason why elves live in the forest and dwarves in the caves and mountains. without him elves would be constrained to the north pole making toys. he created fantasy, before him there was only mythology (different from fantasy).

 

Well, there are the Scandanavian, Finnish, Icelandic and Celtic myths that Tolkien drew upon which feature all of these things, particularly the dwarves (the elves are mostly Tolkien's own invention, however). And you are incorrect: people sitting around the fire listening to the story of Ragnarok is the 11th Century equivalent of going down to your shop to pick up the latest Robert Jordan novel. Mythology IS fantasy, in a very real sense.

 

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.

 

You mean apart from Robert E. Howard, who was publishing stories with magic and heroes a decade before Tolkien published The Hobbit (let alone TLotR). Or Jack Vance, who started publishing The Dying Earth five years before LotR? Or Mervyn Peak, whose Gormenghast novels predate Tolkien by a decade? Or Lord Dunsany, who was writing at the start of the 20th Century? Or Tolkien's pal CS Lewis, whose Narnia books predate LotR by fifteen years?

 

The argument I cannot stand is that Tolkien 'created' 'modern fantasy'. He did not. He massively popularised a sub-strand of the genre which is now often called 'epic fantasy' or 'secondary world fantasy' and which led, via Brooks, Eddings, Feist, Weis & Hickman etc, to Jordan, Martin, Erikson, Bakker and now Lynch and Abercrombie. However, secondary world fantasy existed before Tolkien (Robert E. Howard's Hyboria, home of Conan and Kull the Conqueror or the strange world of Peake's Gormenghast Castle) and there are many strands of fantasy that exist today that owe little to him (such as the magic realism of John Fowles or Umberto Eco or Borgs or many others).

[baalzamon]

"Well, there are the Scandanavian, Finnish, Icelandic and Celtic myths that Tolkien drew upon which feature all of these things, particularly the dwarves (the elves are mostly Tolkien's own invention, however). And you are incorrect: people sitting around the fire listening to the story of Ragnarok is the 11th Century equivalent of going down to your shop to pick up the latest Robert Jordan novel. Mythology IS fantasy, in a very real sense."

 

well first of all if u are going to the very fact u call them dwarves is proof of tolkiens influence. the plural form of a dwarf pre-tolkien was dwarfs. so u yourself r using a tolkienism in claiming he didn't effect the image of the dwarf. also, while germanic cultures did believe dwarfs(to refer to pre-tolkien) livid in moutains, if you went anywhere outside a germanic culture u would be laughed at in sayong they livid in moutains. in fact the only things everyone agreed on was that they were short. isreal, eygpt, even natvie americans had ideas of dwarfs. even in arthurian lore the drawfs were only short people, like humans in every other way. the reason the image of the germanic dwarf became so popular worldwide was tolkien. Next, mythology is "A body or collection of myths belonging to a people and addressing their origin, history, deities, ancestors, and heroes." while in his letter to waldman he does say he is trying to create a mythology, i doubt anyone will claim the world of middle earth is true mythology. the difference between the 2 is the culture and belief involved in myths. myths and fantasy are not the same... unless u believe that the dragon is due to come saves us and destroy us in the near future. While tolkien did not create fantasy, ( i do have to give that award to another... probably MacDonald) he is the reason it became an actual genre. Before him it was only a what we would call today a cult following known as the "lost world" (which if you call them fantasy then tarzan the tarzan seris is fantasy). And as for Conan... using that as a refference shows u probably didn't read it. i guess technically it is a fantasy but i honestly can't decide which was worst, the books or the movie with arnold. btw while LotR was after the chronicles of Narnia, the hobbit came 12 yrs. earlier and the Silmarillion was written almost 25 yrs. before so nice try but cheap shot and poor form. and the first published CoN book was in 1949, 5 yrs not 15 yrs, again poor form.

[Werthead]

It is true that the correct plural of 'dwarf' is 'dwarfs', but no-one calls them that apart from Terry Pratchett. So certainly Tolkien has had an enormous influence in that area.

 

And of course mythology is fantasy. The two are the same. The difference is merely that one is the accumulation of centuries of different lore and the modern form of fantasy is consciously, artificially created. Both are still fictional stories created to entertain. No-one created Fantasy. The genre has been with us since the dawn of time. You can say that Frankenstein created SF (as Aldiss argues), certainly, or that Howard created epic fantasy, but for Fantasy itself there is always somewhere earlier to go back to.

 

Before him it was only a what we would call today a cult following known as the "lost world" (which if you call them fantasy then tarzan the tarzan seris is fantasy)

 

This makes no sense. The Lost World type of story - including King Kong - is arguably SF (dinosaurs do not exist in the real world but some kind of timeslip or isolated ecosystem where they could have survived is possible, if ridiculously improbable), not Fantasy. Most Tarzan stories, I believe, have no fantastical elements in them. On the other hand, Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol is fantasy (because of the ghosts) and Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels is fantasy (because of the flying islands and giant people), both long predating Tolkien. As for earlier consciously-created Fantasy tales, the obvious example is Beowulf, created by a single writer some time between the 8th and 10th centuries.

 

And as for Conan... using that as a refference shows u probably didn't read it.

 

I have the two-volume Complete Conan Chronicles collection by Gollancz sitting on my shelf behind me. Some of the stories are poor, but the majority are reasonably and even surprisingly good.

 

i guess technically it is a fantasy but i honestly can't decide which was worst, the books or the movie with arnold.

 

What has this got to do with the discussion of pre-LotR Fantasy?

 

btw while LotR was after the chronicles of Narnia, the hobbit came 12 yrs. earlier and the Silmarillion was written almost 25 yrs. before so nice try but cheap shot and poor form.

 

The Silmarillion was never completed by JRRT, and the published version did not appear until 1977, which is 22 years after Lord of the Rings was published. It is true that Tolkien started writing it in 1917 and it is also true that he read some parts of it to Lewis in the 1930s, which I'm assuming is what you are referring to. Tolkien was quite angry with Lewis, feeling that after hearing some of the Middle-earth tales Lewis had gotten up 'to have a go' himself, and this (along with Lewis remarrying in defiance of Catholic convention) contributed to the straining of their friendship in the 1940s. Tolkien was also irked by Lewis using 'Numinor' as a name in one of his Ransom SF books, although Lewis said this was a tribute to his friend more than stealing an idea.

 

and the first published CoN book was in 1949, 5 yrs not 15 yrs, again poor form.

 

Someone hasn't done their research. The first Conan story, The Phoenix on the Sword, was written in 1931, accepted for publication in March 1932 and was finally published in the September 1932 issue of Weird Tales, five years before The Hobbit and - okay - thirteen years before Lord of the Rings.

 

EDIT: Whoops! Sorry, you meant the first Chronicles of Narnia (CoN) book? Yes, you are correct, it was published in 1949, five years before LotR was published. I thought it was 1941 for some reason. Oh well.

[baalzamon]

And of course mythology is fantasy. The two are the same.

appearantly, we have very different views of mythology, i doubt either of us will agree with each other. i suppose even if i were to consult the webster dictionary u still would be to stubborn to change you view. btw

"1 a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon b : PARABLE, ALLEGORY

2 a : a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society <seduced> b : an unfounded or false notion

3 : a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence

4 : the whole body of myths"

(webster)

i admit deffinition 3 works with your belief, but 1 and 2 agree with me, and unless the wheel of time explains y somthing happns or is believed by people as actually happened/happening, then if mythology and fantasy are synonomous then WoTis really fantasy, by ur logic.

Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol is fantasy

ok now u have to be kidding me. u dont honestly belive a christmas carrol to be fantasy do u. just because of ghosts... heck tons of people believe in ghosts(btw dont even try to use my own deffinition against me, it has ghosts...doesn't explain them) just look at ghost hunters etc. wait that means if a christmas carol is fantasy... and by your lgic fantasy is mythology... a christmas carrol is mythology. wow! now i know the truth my eyes have been opened. thank you for this enlightening conclusion. there is a very big difference between fantastic elements and the fantasy genre. as for beowulf i would classify it as a myth. and as for the simarillion... it was finished and submitted for publishing shortly after the hobbit, the publishers didn't like it, and asked for a sequel to the hobbit, thus the bith of LoTR. the reason he didn't publish Simarillion and the lost tales before the hobbit was a lack of confidence it would be excepted. Also, i have never said Tolkien started fantasy... again Macdonald would probably be first but im not sure of dates. i say he was the father of fantasy (by adoption i guess). he is the reason it became a real power in the book world and the reason that one could go to the local book store any time and find hundreds of books that are directly inffluenced by tolkien. while conan was before him it was a very shallow storyline. there is an obvious difference between pre tolkien fantasy and post. its amazing the dfference, you can feel it just by reading them. oh, and as for the lost world refference, i have met many people who claim it was the first popular fantasy, to which i disagree with. i guess we agree there, the the lost world books, while excellent pieces are not fantasy. the reason for stating it was to show anyone reading who believed that how ridiculus the idea of tarzan as a fantasy would be.

The difference is merely that one is the accumulation of centuries of different lore and the modern form of fantasy is consciously, artificially created. Both are still fictional stories created to entertain.

thats a pretty big difference. also, no, myths are created to explain something or tell a story that, while fantastic, is meant to be believed (see above def) i doubt jordan wants us to believe his stories are true. btw, debate aside i hope u have a wonderful day! according to ur pic i guess u are from england so i hope the weather warms up for u guys.

[SBoydW]

Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol is fantasy

 

Actually it was based losley on events that happend to him in his real life. So it's kind of like a story about himself.

[Werthead]

Any story that involves supernatural elements not explainable by science (including ghosts) is, by definition, fantasy. I don't really think that there is any arguing with that. You can say it's not much of a fantasy, certainly, but nevertheless it involves fantastical elements.

 

Whilst mythology is a form of fantasy, fantasy is not a form of mythology. Neither Wheel of Time nor A Christmas Carol is mythology, whilst the story of King Arthur or the legend of Valhalla and Ragnarok most certainly are. Myths are simply stories that derived from an oral tradition and have been altered many times over the years, and their authors cannot be definitely traced. I fail to see how some guy sitting at a fire in 1000BC or something coming up with the legend of Atlantis is any less an act of creating a fictional, fantastical story than RJ sitting in front of his word processor.

[SBoydW]

Any story that involves supernatural elements not explainable by science (including ghosts) is, by definition, fantasy.

 

So is the bible fiction?

[Talya]

SBoydW, I would say that the old testament is actually myth as this was not written down at or near the time of the events happening but hundreds maybe even thousands of years after an event and like all myths grew and changed from the original event.

 

 

I've tried to compare Tolkein and Jorden before and have now given up. I love the both authors and for different reasons.

 

Lord of the rings I love for the pure romance of it. I don't mean romance in the the love sense, but the romance of adventure...Knights in shining armour stuff.

WOT on the other hand is a great epic read that is more down to earth. We can see traits in the characters that are in ourselves which helps identify with them a lot more easily. It's much less about good and evil there are a lot of grey areas in the book as in real life.

 

So depending on the mood I'm in I like them both for the above reasons.

By the way I also love the Hobbit and the silmarillion, though it took a few reads to get there.

[Werthead]

Any story that involves supernatural elements not explainable by science (including ghosts) is, by definition, fantasy.

 

So is the bible fiction?

 

The Old Testament? Certainly. Or rather, it was a collection of mythological stories from across the Middle East collected together and rewritten for its intended audience (antecedents of the Adam and Eve story can be found in ancient Babylonian sources pre-dating the Jewish Exodus from Egypt, for example), sometimes based on real events (the Great Flood, for example, may be a reference to the flooding of the basin that is now the Black Sea and caused immense destruction in the Middle East region).

 

Much of the New Testament, OTOH, is widely supported by contemporary historical records and can be taken as reliable as any other historical document from the period. As for the supernatural events in the life of Jesus, that is a question of Faith. If you are a believer, they happened. If you are not, other explanations can be found. If you are semi-agnostic (like me), you can just not worry about it as it is never going to be proven one way or another in your lifetime.

[SBoydW]

well.. ok..... more power to ya.

[Mat Cauthon]

Wow, I have a lot to comment on this thread.

 

First off, fantasy definitely isn't mythology while mythology can probably be classified as fantasy, but not in the modern sense.

 

While Tolkien definitely wasn't the first writer in the fantasy genre he definitely revolutionized the genre and started the sub-genre of epic fantasy.

 

A Christmas Carol and Gulliver's Travels definitely aren't fantasy. A Christmas Carol might have ghosts, but other than that it is not that fantastical. Gulliver's Travels I wouldn't consider fantasy personally. It does have 3 main regions of other people (large, small, weird) and then one with horses speaking.

 

I am insulted that many of you said that the Old Testament was myth and/or fiction. It is fine if you don't believe in the supernatural elements, but it insults me that some of you say it is just a compilation of myths. If anything it has been proven that the Old Testament is a solid historical record which has shown its validity many times through other sources. Whether you believe in the supernatural elements or not other sources have shown the historical accuracy of events written in the Bible (both Old and New Testaments).

[Mat Cauthon]

http://www.probe.org/content/view/31/77/

 

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a008.html

 

Are a few sources to look at.

[Talya]

Mat, In no way did I mean to offend you. It is my opinion that the old testament is a group of myths and tales written down. Like most Myths it has basis in truth. For example it is said that the great flood was an event that occured in the Black sea area after the ice age melt. Melt water had gathered in the medittarean Sea and when it got too high ran through and made the Black Sea the size it was today. It is a common story throughout many areas of the world not just the old testament. however what is not proven is the whole story of Noah. The Flood yes but the people are the stories made round the event. So Archaeology does not prove that the Bible is true but that the stories were founded on real places. It would be like saying The Illiad is a true story because they have found Troy...All it does is prove Troy existed not Helen of Troy.

The Bible is about faith in believing the stories, That is up to anyone to make their choice and I would not ridicule anyone who believe it neither would I be insulted. I didn't included the New Testament because the time that it was written down was a lot closer to the time it actually happened and to say it was Myth would be pushing the boat out. Doesn't mean i believe in all of it but it has some merits.

[Talya]

Sorry Werthead, should have read your post more thoroughly...just repeated it :oops:

[Werthead]

First off, fantasy definitely isn't mythology while mythology can probably be classified as fantasy, but not in the modern sense.

 

Very true.

 

While Tolkien definitely wasn't the first writer in the fantasy genre he definitely revolutionized the genre and started the sub-genre of epic fantasy.

 

He popularised the sub-genre, certainly, although, as I pointed out, authors like Howard and Vance had dabbled with it previously.

 

A Christmas Carol and Gulliver's Travels definitely aren't fantasy. A Christmas Carol might have ghosts, but other than that it is not that fantastical. Gulliver's Travels I wouldn't consider fantasy personally. It does have 3 main regions of other people (large, small, weird) and then one with horses speaking.

 

Having three ghosts visit someone and show them differeing versions of reality is a fairly everyday occurence then? That's fantastical in my book. And Gulliver's Travels is fantastical throughout, but the flying island kind of elminates any arguments that it isn't.

 

I am insulted that many of you said that the Old Testament was myth and/or fiction. It is fine if you don't believe in the supernatural elements, but it insults me that some of you say it is just a compilation of myths. If anything it has been proven that the Old Testament is a solid historical record which has shown its validity many times through other sources. Whether you believe in the supernatural elements or not other sources have shown the historical accuracy of events written in the Bible (both Old and New Testaments).

 

Certainly things like the various wars between Judaea/Israel and Assyria are supported by history, and there is evidence supporting the Great Flood. There are substantial problems with portions of it, however, such as by backdating through the dates it can be established that the world was created in 4004 BC, at variance with Egyptian, Abyssinian and Chinese accounts of older historical periods and the totality of human scientific discovery to date has conclusively proven that the world is over 5 billion years old. So the fact that the OT contains elements of parable and myth mixed in with (in its latter part) real history is pretty unchallengeable (and I say this as a Christian). However, I don't particularly want to get into that topic.

[torrente]

I've also seen many similarities in the 2 series' date=' 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.........[/quote']

 

A lot of fantasy series seem to borrow from each other . . . I can count three different worlds now that have a mountain range called "Spine of the World" . . . WOT, Forgotten Realms, and Eragon . . .

 

Also the theme of a drought precipitating the resurgence of a dark power is common (Mercedes Lackey's Obsidian Trilogy) . . .

 

The theme of a tribe of desert warriors supporting a chosen one (Dune)

 

I could probably go on. Name some more.

[missinginstereo]

WOT all the way. LoTR just bored me for the most part. I'd consider RJs work a far greater evolution of Tolkiens.