direwolf jon

[Lanthirrhos]

Yea, I've read WoT 5 times through... Its amazing all the clues he drops and we were still clueless the first time around... :P

 

My Rule #5 for reading is: Always Reread your Books!

[Steel Axe]

especially fantasy, if its well written you wont have picked up everything the first time

[SBoydW]

I wish that people here had read the books so that I could tell why I love them... but I don't want to spoil them for those who are reading or who haven't read them yet and might..

[Mystica]

12th and Steel, you two just jumped like 200 levels in my esteem.

 

As a non-english I can safely say that LoTR is a hard read. Both in Dutch (which I actually have a good and accurate translation of, thank the Light) and in English. I also have the Silmarillion and the Hobbit. The Hobbit is obviously more to a child's level than LoTR, though I'm constantly amazed at the young ages english speaking children would start to read books like LoTR and WOT.

 

LoTR, like 12th rightfully put forth, is not a comparison towards our known history. If it is at all a reference to 'our' world, then it's timeframe preceeds ànything we know in reality of history. Therefore to compare it to a series that does create an alternate or similar 'middle ages' is the first mistake to make.

 

Tolkien can never be bettered as he can never be duplicated. His was a unique writing, that didn't follow any rule or preset established conditions. His intent was not to create a 'fantasy' but a 'legend'. There's a difference.

 

I keep being astounded that people would actually dare to compare Tolkien to any other writer. He is incomparable to anyone. J.R.R. Tolkien is unique, his Middle Earth is unique. His legacy is unique.

 

I get mad when people compare other writers to him, for it diminishes both Tolkien and the writer that's being compared to him. Like when I read stupid headlines on Robert Jordan, calling him the 'Next Tolkien' or 'He continues where Tolkien cut off' or some other crapbull like that.

 

To compare RJ to Tolkien diminishes BOTH writers. Tolkien can NOT be compared to ànyone. RJ (and other writers like him) do not nééd to be compared to Tolkien as they cary their own strength, skill and talent.

 

And now im gonna stop cuz my ears are starting to fume. LOL

 

*sheepish grin*

[Kara_J]

Wow! Myst!!

 

That was a fantastic post and I agree with everything you wrote.

 

Tolkien created a legend and thus cannot be duplicated or even compared to. He was and remains unique.

[Taymist]

As far as the comparing stuff goes, I'm in complete agreement with you Myst. I think its a shame and a travesty that every good writer that comes along is suddenly "the next Tolkien". It isn't fair to either party.

 

That's where my agreement ends though. Tolkien was far from unique... he's merely better publicised. There were better writers doing what he did prior to him actually doing it. What made him stand out was the scale on which he did it. Admittedly, his "world" was the first to be formed in that amount of depth/detail but it was hardly unique. He wasn't either the first writer of high fantasy nor the best.

 

Its a very common misconception that the legacy to fantasists today comes from Tolkien, it doesn't. That's only a partial truth. His is, as I've said, just the most well known.

 

As for the comparison to our own reality, I wouldn't say that's what GRRM was aiming for either. I've seen no suggestion of it. All writers, including Tolkien, draw aspects of their writing from the world as we know it and its history, that's unavoidable as a human being. We can only write from our own knowledge base. GRRM's world may have similarities to parts of what we recognise as the medieval period... but its hardly a direct draw any more than the medieval aspects of Tolkien's writing (armour, weapons, castles, keeps etc etc).

[Cam]

i agree with taymist...he bases it on reality, but distorts it with the setting (men being weak and easily succeptible to greed for example). He (like all writers) takes characteristics from reality and adds them to his world.

Claiming one writer is "the best" is like saying one type of food tastes the best or saying a particular movie is the best...it can't be done it all depends on the person reading the books' perspective (i love pizza, you dont...who is right?)

you see?

However, I am in no way sayin that tolkein wasnt great...i happen to love LotR but i also happen to enjoy reading SOIF more...does that make one book better? not quite. one is different than the other.

LotR is a saga (or legend) about a particular quest... SOIF and WoT are the trails and tribulations of a world wracked by war, deceit, and death... WoT and SOIF do not directly lead to anything, they just tell about a time period...

Frodo goes on a quest that he knows he MUST complete and he knows how to do it and wehre he must go etc...

Rand (for example) knows WHAT must be done, but when and where and how are up to him.

I cant do one for SOIF b/c of spoilers, but you get my point...

that is my standpoint on this debate

[SBoydW]

I regard Tolkien as a Founding Father of modern fantasy. And I think that he gets most of that credit because he was the most publicised. Which means he did something that other writers couldn't do... which is gain an audience. Which means he's definatley good.

 

His writings though are tough reading sometimes. I think that it's mostly because he was pioneering this type of literature.

 

WoT and ASoIaF are easier to read to me but then their writers(Jordan and Martin respectively) had decades of works to look at and say "hmm this works and this doesn't."

 

So I think I'm agreeing that their both good. I am more of a fan of WoT and ASoIaF though.

[Lanthirrhos]

See? Not that much work Boyo... :P

[Odette]

I regard Tolkien as a Founding Father of modern fantasy. And I think that he gets most of that credit because he was the most publicised. Which means he did something that other writers couldn't do... which is gain an audience. Which means he's definatley good.

 

His writings though are tough reading sometimes. I think that it's mostly because he was pioneering this type of literature.

 

And he did so by stealing other people's ideas

*shakes fist at the so called 'founding father of modern fantasy'*

[Lanthirrhos]

:lol: :lol: :lol: Haven't we been over this...

[Odette]

*shrugs* Mabye. ^_^

 

I had a thread in the debate boards a few months back. ^_^

[Lanthirrhos]

Yea lol :P

[Corki]

Homer and the Ancients were the founders of Modern Epic Fantasy.

 

A slightly biased view, of course! ;)

[MsDanya]

aww you could never be biased Corks :P

[Lanthirrhos]

Not that baised, its true... and much of modern lit is rip off of theirs...

[Corki]

Then you need to look at Mesopotomian literature, and you'll see where Homer got quite a few of his ideas from...

[Lanthirrhos]

Yea, I was watching a special on that... uhhh... i dunno when, it was a while ago... :shock: