Lord of the Rings!!!

[MattheHat]

I ated the purple berries... They taste like... burning.

[wheeloftime13]

??

[Basel Gill]

I ated the purple berries... They taste like... burning.

 

These berries taste like burning. My cat's breath smells like cat food.

[The Wolf King]

lol oh Ralph you silly fool.

[WildTaltos]

The first movie came out when I was in high school, and I believe truly was amazing, and brought it to plenty of people who thought fantasy novels were lame.

That being said, I think Jordan eclipsed Tolkien by far and created something beyond fantasy.

Robert jordan is crap fantsy, hodge podge of myths taht he doesnt even manage to use right. Tolkien is an adaptation of Teutonic myths and to a lesser extent celtic. No contest. case closed.

[Netbattler11]

Well someone has strong opinions about this.

[lolguy26]

ive never really gotten around to read anything other than the hobbit

 

 

(i find the series pretty dull cuz i started LotR after i finished WoT)

[WildTaltos]

Well someone has strong opinions about this.

only the truth - robert jordan is cheap entertinment who trashs almost all the mythologicl elemnts he decided to use (except the christian ones, go figure) and Tolkien wrote a masterpiece reworking old mythology and analyzing Germanic languages.

[Netbattler11]

I don't mean to be rude, but if that's your opinion then why are you on an RJ site and not a Tolkien one?

[WildTaltos]

I don't mean to be rude, but if that's your opinion then why are you on an RJ site and not a Tolkien one?

becuse i liek reading him, if for no other reason than sentimental value - i just recognize he is inferior to Tolkien, thats what Im saying <.<. maek sense?

[Netbattler11]

Oh, okay. It sounded like you hated his guts actually >.>

[WildTaltos]

of course i hate his guts - i jst read the books anyways becuse its sentimental for a certin reason for me

[Netbattler11]

Oh.

 

 

Okay.

[wheeloftime13]

ummm... do you hate him because he isn't like tolkein?

[WildTaltos]

i haet him because he doesnt respect a lot of the mythological elemnts he borrows from religions besides christianity....though then that means he is not liek tolkien, so yes.

[randomh3r0]

Fair enough, but those are your opinions. They may be shared with some, but you can't say anything that's opinion is fact.

 

Most people in here love Jordan's work, me being one of them, and I personally found Tolkien's writing to be stagnant, narrow and a bit easy to stop reading. That's just my opinion, as is my opinion that Jordan's works to build this fantasy world and incorporate so many elements from real life into characters that are both noble and devious at times is something that truly adds a hint of realism to this series that Tolkien didn't do, and maybe didn't want to do.

 

Again, just my opinion.

 

I'm surprised you hate the author of the series that made this very thread possible, but that's you, and you've explained it enough I think.

[WildTaltos]

Fair enough, but those are your opinions. They may be shared with some, but you can't say anything that's opinion is fact.

And among those some are scholars in Norse/Germanic and Celtic mythology, the same sort that revel in the Poetic and Prose eddas, high art, so if the competent judges believ its better, just as classical music is considered better than rock by competnt musical judges, it seems apparent there is an overwhlming consensus that one work is quality in that given area, the othre is crap.

 

 

Most people in here love Jordan's work, me being one of them, and I personally found Tolkien's writing 1.) to be stagnant, narrow and a bit easy to stop reading. That's just my opinion, as is my opinion that 2.) Jordan's works to build this fantasy world and incorporate so many elements from real life into characters that are both noble and devious at times is something that truly adds a hint of realism to this series that Tolkien didn't do, and maybe didn't want to do.

 

Again, just my opinion.

 

3.) I'm surprised you hate the author of the series that made this very thread possible, but that's you, and you've explained it enough I think.

1.) just as I am supposng you would find other works of mythology stagnant, etc. Peple often find high art boring so your attitude is entirely predictable

 

2.) jordan's work can never be any moer than fantasy though, crap entertainment far apart from this world (and as i said, he uses bits and pieces of different cultures all jumbled togethre irrelevantly, and thats quite disgusting especilly since my culture is oen of the ones he did that to). Tolkien, as I already mentioned, is his own adaptation of Scandinavian and Celtic lore, and he uses all elements he used to build his mythology with respect, with jordan seemed impaired of doing, so from an academic standpoint, Tolkien is superior. From pop media thuogh...yes, Jordan is bettre at being more "exciting" - but I prefer things I can analyze with something extent, like Celtic and Germanic paganism, than chep entertainment . And Im apprently thinking you know nothing about Tolkien's connections to Northern European mythology or else yuo wouldnt be comparing him at all to just a pop fantasy writer. Classical music to rock argument.

 

3.) Is taht so surprising? I read his work for a sentimental purpose, thn I found this site whch I mostly like - dont know how me having to like him as person ties into that.

[randomh3r0]

Fair enough, but those are your opinions. They may be shared with some, but you can't say anything that's opinion is fact.

And among those some are scholars in Norse/Germanic and Celtic mythology, the same sort that revel in the Poetic and Prose eddas, high art, so if the competent judges believ its better, just as classical music is considered better than rock by competnt musical judges, it seems apparent there is an overwhlming consensus that one work is quality in that given area, the othre is crap.

 

 

Most people in here love Jordan's work, me being one of them, and I personally found Tolkien's writing 1.) to be stagnant, narrow and a bit easy to stop reading. That's just my opinion, as is my opinion that 2.) Jordan's works to build this fantasy world and incorporate so many elements from real life into characters that are both noble and devious at times is something that truly adds a hint of realism to this series that Tolkien didn't do, and maybe didn't want to do.

 

Again, just my opinion.

 

3.) I'm surprised you hate the author of the series that made this very thread possible, but that's you, and you've explained it enough I think.

1.) just as I am supposng you would find other works of mythology stagnant, etc. Peple often find high art boring so your attitude is entirely predictable

 

2.) jordan's work can never be any moer than fantasy though, crap entertainment far apart from this world (and as i said, he uses bits and pieces of different cultures all jumbled togethre irrelevantly, and thats quite disgusting especilly since my culture is oen of the ones he did that to). Tolkien, as I already mentioned, is his own adaptation of Scandinavian and Celtic lore, and he uses all elements he used to build his mythology with respect, with jordan seemed impaired of doing, so from an academic standpoint, Tolkien is superior. From pop media thuogh...yes, Jordan is bettre at being more "exciting" - but I prefer things I can analyze with something extent, like Celtic and Germanic paganism, than chep entertainment . And Im apprently thinking you know nothing about Tolkien's connections to Northern European mythology or else yuo wouldnt be comparing him at all to just a pop fantasy writer. Classical music to rock argument.

 

3.) Is taht so surprising? I read his work for a sentimental purpose, thn I found this site whch I mostly like - dont know how me having to like him as person ties into that.

Taltos,

 

While I understand that you and I don't necessarily see eye to eye often, if ever, I must say that a statement like the one I bolded of yours is ridiculous. You only know of me a very small percentage of the things I've chosen to share in this forum, and to make such a statement as if towards an intellectual inferior is not only rude, it's completely off-base. I thoroughly enjoy plenty of works of mythology: Greek and Roman especially.

If you wish to put Tolkien on the same level as these works, fine, that's your right to your opinion. But you have no idea of what I appreciate, find enjoyable, boring or really anything except the few scraps you've read (and mostly argued with) in the BT. To say that an attitude I have is predictable is so off-base and unnecessary.

 

As I stated multiple times, these are my OPINIONS, as yours are yours. Sure, there are probably plenty of scholars who agree with you that Tolkien's works are great. But your phrase, and I quote,

"And among those some are scholars in Norse/Germanic and Celtic mythology, the same sort that revel in the Poetic and Prose eddas, high art, so if the competent judges believ its better, just as classical music is considered better than rock by competnt musical judges, it seems apparent there is an overwhlming consensus that one work is quality in that given area, the othre is crap." is asinine:

1. Forgive me if I don't base my appreciation of literature on what scholars of Norse and Celtic mythology say. It's just that there's so many other forms of mythology to enjoy and appreciate, and there's so many ways to interpret, grade and judge it. Again, you're speaking your opinion from those you cite as people whose opinions also matter... to you.

2. Your statement about classical music vs. rock couldn't be further from the widely-accepted truth. True appreciation of music doesn't abide by genres, and there are genius level metal musicians who, if you converted their music to sheet music, have composed songs as complex, moving and musically challenging as any classical piece. Instrumentation is important, but so is interpretation: YOU might like classical music more, and plenty of people would agree, but they're not the only people whose opinions matter or carry relevance in a day when classical music is no longer the ultimate showcase of composition. And though I'm a rock musician now, I'm thoroughly trained in classical and jazz, so I can talk theory and merit of music all day long.

3. There is no overwhelming consensus that you speak of. Tolkien's work has been out longer, and has stood the test of time. I don't argue that. But it's also never been said "The work of Tolkien is good, which means Jordan's works must be crap". That's an unnecessary extreme to take the discussion to. One work being good doesn't mean another has to be bad. Really, you only deal in absolutes like that? I never said Lord of the Rings was crap. I just said that in my reading experience, I found the above attributes to be reasons why I didn't think it was as good. Nothing more.

 

You simply can not make such statements as if absolute fact: not only do you not cite sources of all these scholars, but it wouldn't matter if you did, because the whole topic is 100% subjective. Art isn't meant to be graded and judged, it's meant to be enjoyed and appreciated. If you don't appreciate something, don't spend a second of energy on it. Focus on what you do enjoy.

[WildTaltos]

 

Taltos,

 

While I understand that you and I don't necessarily see eye to eye often, if ever, I must say that a statement like the one I bolded of yours is ridiculous. You only know of me a very small percentage of the things I've chosen to share in this forum, and to make such a statement as if towards an intellectual inferior is not only rude, it's completely off-base. I thoroughly enjoy plenty of works of mythology: Greek and Roman especially.

If you wish to put Tolkien on the same level as these works, fine, that's your right to your opinion. But you have no idea of what I appreciate, find enjoyable, boring or really anything except the few scraps you've read (and mostly argued with) in the BT. 1.)To say that an attitude I have is predictable is so off-base and unnecessary.

 

2.) As I stated multiple times, these are my OPINIONS, as yours are yours. Sure, there are probably plenty of scholars who agree with you that Tolkien's works are great. But your phrase, and I quote,

"And among those some are scholars in Norse/Germanic and Celtic mythology, the same sort that revel in the Poetic and Prose eddas, high art, so if the competent judges believ its better, just as classical music is considered better than rock by competnt musical judges, it seems apparent there is an overwhlming consensus that one work is quality in that given area, the othre is crap." is asinine:

 

3.)1. Forgive me if I don't base my appreciation of literature on what scholars of Norse and Celtic mythology say. It's just that there's so many other forms of mythology to enjoy and appreciate, and there's so many ways to interpret, grade and judge it. Again, you're speaking your opinion from those you cite as people whose opinions also matter... to you.

 

4.) 2. Your statement about classical music vs. rock couldn't be further from the widely-accepted truth. True appreciation of music doesn't abide by genres, and there are genius level metal musicians who, if you converted their music to sheet music, have composed songs as complex, moving and musically challenging as any classical piece. Instrumentation is important, but so is interpretation: YOU might like classical music more, and plenty of people would agree, but they're not the only people whose opinions matter or carry relevance in a day when classical music is no longer the ultimate showcase of composition. And though I'm a rock musician now, I'm thoroughly trained in classical and jazz, so I can talk theory and merit of music all day long.

 

5.) 3. There is no overwhelming consensus that you speak of. Tolkien's work has been out longer, and has stood the test of time. I don't argue that. But it's also never been said "The work of Tolkien is good, which means Jordan's works must be crap". That's an unnecessary extreme to take the discussion to. One work being good doesn't mean another has to be bad. Really, you only deal in absolutes like that? I never said Lord of the Rings was crap. I just said that in my reading experience, I found the above attributes to be reasons why I didn't think it was as good. Nothing more.

 

6.) You simply can not make such statements as if absolute fact: not only do you not cite sources of all these scholars, but it wouldn't matter if you did, because the whole topic is 100% subjective. Art isn't meant to be graded and judged, it's meant to be enjoyed and appreciated. If you don't appreciate something, don't spend a second of energy on it. Focus on what you do enjoy.

1.) But true. If you are going to place Tolkien beneath jordan in terms of literature, then you do a consensus of those who are actually learned in the field, and by that consensus, the quality of the Legendarium is higher, and you said so yourself that you thnk it is worse because it is boring. I expect that from most people, to think the highre art is worse, so hence predictable.

 

2.) How is taht asinine? I stated people who actually have a competent cultural gauge will place Tolkien's work aboev crap fantasy, so it is just supportng that Tolkien is highre quality.

 

3.) And as I haev reiterated multiple times, jordan butchers all mythologies he put his paws on, not just the Northern Europen ones (though thos are the ones that bothre me). if you liek someone who does that, well, thats your preference, as you like to point out

 

4.) Way to derail a subject . I dont include metal in rock, evn if yes, thats technically a subgenre, and I do know that some metal artists, if yuo played their pieces on a violin instead, would be just as lovely as classical music because they can put that level of complexity in it. Perhaps I shuold haev said "country" instead, where yuo dont really haev a subgenre that can get any complexity, but thank yuo once again for going off the point - the point is, one has higher quality in terms of aesthetics (and whn you talk literature, yuo would add historical and/or humanistic context as well), so, classical (quality) as opposed to (fill in the blank with crap music, taek your pick becuse you didn't seem to undrestand the analogy whn I used rock).

 

5.) Sorry that yuo are ignorant - go read some literary essays on Tolkien, then we can talk abuot that consensus among the experts. And way to twist up my words, liek you do in all other discussions - I gaev reasons why jordan is crap (poor use and confused combination of cultural elements) not that Tolkien is a god so anyone else must be crap. So your absoluet argument apparently doesn't apply to me.

 

6.) Well, when you dont maek a distinction between low and high art, whch apparently you dont (i.e. the person who thinks the modern art cube can have the same aesthetic and skill value as Michelangelos David becaue everything is relative), then yes, thats the case. You probably dont even know waht I meant by competent judge if thats the case as well. But as you said - its your right to think low art is better and its my right to think high art is better

 

Now calm down becuse you obviously are angry because your arguments were poor

[randomh3r0]

If you can't keep your retaliations from being indistinguishable from insults, which is apparent by saying I'm ignorant, saying what I like is "low art", implying I have a poor or incompetent cultural gauge for preferring Jordan, then this is no longer a discussion or debate, it's an attack.

I was just trying to express my opinion.

I'm absolutely done with this now.

[WildTaltos]

well , didnt mean for it to sound like that...>.>

[ruairidh7]

Can't we all just get along?

[WildTaltos]

i dont liek this song, really but hehe, it works

 

[wheeloftime13]

thank you, I like it when people can get along.... if only for a little bit

[wheeloftime13]

Well, this was certainly an interesting topic.