Tolkien compared to other writers

[Nurvingiel]

Terry Brooks said somewhere (total paraphrase) that "The Sword of Shannarah" (his first novel, written in 1977 IIRC) was a homage to "Lord of the Rings", or that it mirrored it. There's a thread on that somewhere.

I have read all of the books in the Shannarah series, and I love them! It is kind of annoying how high the body count is sometimes, but they're extremely gripping, suspenseful, and well-written. Even though you know 90% of the characters are going to be greusomely killed by unspeakable evil, you can't predict the rest of the plot.
I didn't like his "Knight of the Word" book though, the main character pissed me off too much.
I like Tolkien better, and I kind of read these two series simultaneously (time-wise). I think I read Tolkien first though.

I'm not reading Robert Jordan until I hear he conclusively finishes the series. Tolkien may have been a little ambiguous about some things (1 or 2 Glorfindels, Balrog wings, Tom Bombadil), but at least his books have proper endings. You don't go insane after reading one. I have heard otherwise about Jordan.

[Wayfarer]

think there's two kinds of fantasy novels - the fun, lighthearted kind and the grandiose, create-an-entire-universe kind. In other words, children's fantasy and epic fantasy.

I don't think it's as clear cut as that. I can think of at least one example of a humorous, light-hearted fantasy that's set in it's own created universe.

I'd say there are more categories than that: Childrens fantasy (which isn't always funny), Humorous fantasy (which isn't always for children), Epic Fantasy, Dark Fantasy, Quasi-fantasy...

Tolkien is the best, of course. Because modern authors have all copied him, but none of them had the frame of reference to create something as wonderful as Middle Earth.

[Lenya]

[QUOTE=Wayfarer]I don't think it's as clear cut as that. I can think of at least one example of a humorous, light-hearted fantasy that's set in it's own created universe.[QUOTE]

= Discworld

[ethuiliel]

Some fantasy is better than others, and it is clear that a lot of it was at least inspired by LotR, but most of the fantasy I've read is good. Tolkien is still my favorite, maybe tied with one or two others, but that doesn't make the others bad.

[Lenya]

I'd really not say that all of the rest is good. Maybe even a little less than most. you can find really bad fantasy if you dig deepintothe unknow ones... beware. But I must admit that you would rather get a bad sci fi than a bad fantasy.

[ethuiliel]

I didn't actually mean that there was no bad fantasy... of course there is... I just said that I hadn't read any. I try to be careful and avoid them.

[Lenya]

that's a good idee.

[Jabberwock]

I first read LotR, I think in the 8th grade and liked it, but wasn't real excited about it. Later, in university, it was on the reading list for an upper level english course on fantasy literature, so I got to study it then. The professor of the course has been offering it for over 25 years and he reads LotR every year. I found that both fascinating and a little disturbing. I asked him once if it ever got old for him and he said something like, "No! This course gives me an excuse to read LotR. I read so many other books for other courses [he also teaches medieval lit, intro, etc] that its nice to read something really good for a change." I still don't go back to Tolkien often, but that impressed me. The title of this thread is 'tolkien compared to other writers', not just fantasy writers. This man has been a professor of english for more than 30 years and yet he looks forward to LotR each year, not Chaucer, and not Thomas Mallory (although he's an arthurian scholar).
There is a little book called Fantasists on Fantasy you might find in second hand book stores in which several older fantasy writers, including Tolkien, Leguin, and Lewis, talk about how fantasy works. Several mention LotR and its merits and influence on them. It's a good read.

[Lenya]

That's so cool. I'd love to attend his classes and also have a valid exuse for rereading Tolkien's works. Right now I'm way too busy reading all the other stuff I still want to.

[Jabberwock]

Way back there in this thread, Iron Parrot compares LotR with the Alice books. I'm not going to argue that Alice and Tolkien are alike in the least, but, IP states Alice is kiddy fantasy, suggesting fluff. Alice is anything but kid fantasy if you move beyond the surface. Within, it is filled with darkness, loneliness, fear and doubt. A few years back I wrote a grad thesis using the Alice books as my focus and read several psychology papers about how kids reacted to the books. Most kids find them unsettling and frightening. There is at least as much depth in the Alice books as there is in LotR. Sorry, IP, just had to defend one of my favorite sets of books.

[Snowdog]

I guess the reason I liked The Black Company series so much was because it wasn't a Tolkien derivative.

I tried to read Jordan but gave up after a chapter or two. Never got into Brooks as it seemed too much a rip on Tolkien. I may have to give Elizabeth Moon a try after I work my way through George R.R. Martin.

[Jabberwock]

Elizabeth Moon is actually quite a good writer, though I haven't read anything by her in about 7 years or more. Her's isn't even close to my kind of fantasy, though. I've only read the Deeds of Paksenarion, and it was quite a departure from Tolkienesque fantasy. So is Martin, but in a different and much more engaging way. They're both much more personal representations of their respective stories. I've never read Glen Cook, but I guess given the amount of talk praising it, I should. Robert Jordan's ep(athet)ic is abysmal and I wish that I could take back the four books of the series I did struggle through and turn than energy toward better books. In fact, despite my enjoyment of epic fantasy, I am turning more increasingly to the single volume stories. Right now, I am rereading several of Guy Gavriel Kay's books. I would highly recommend Tigana, Lions of Al-Rassan, Song for Arbonne and Sailing to Sarantium. All are very different than tolkienesque fantasy and examples of exceptional writing. And, if you need a little tolkien in the mix, Kay helped put together the Silmarillion.

[Lenya]

Originally Posted by Jabberwock

Way back there in this thread, Iron Parrot compares LotR with the Alice books. I'm not going to argue that Alice and Tolkien are alike in the least, but, IP states Alice is kiddy fantasy, suggesting fluff. Alice is anything but kid fantasy if you move beyond the surface. Within, it is filled with darkness, loneliness, fear and doubt. A few years back I wrote a grad thesis using the Alice books as my focus and read several psychology papers about how kids reacted to the books. Most kids find them unsettling and frightening. There is at least as much depth in the Alice books as there is in LotR. Sorry, IP, just had to defend one of my favorite sets of books.

By 'Alice books' I assume you're referring to Alice in Wonderland (Lewis Carol I think)? I didn't know there was a series.

And Snowdog, would you please give a comment on George R.R. Martin. Are his books as good as I've heard? Because I really want to read it but don't know if it is good or bad fantasy - I keep my distance from bad fantasy.

[Jabberwock]

Alice in Wonderland is actually not the name of the books but it is the name of the Disney movie (which sucks). Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass are the names of the two book. Oddly enough, or appropriately so, Lewis Carroll was a professor of logic at Cambridge University and an author of something like 300 books on logic, mathematics, and puzzles. He was a messed up guy. Anyway, his fiction is chock full of logic puzzles, quirky stuff, and just plain unsettling (especially for the time) situations. Everything in the Alice books is intentional and meant to mean something. Whether or not its decipherable is up to the reader. I'm a bit biased in my view of the books because of the attachment I got studying them for a prolongued period of time. They're still well worth reading though.

[Lenya]

I completely forgot about Through the Looking Glass I actually knew about it, saddly I have to admit that's because of the movie. Thanx for the bit of history on Lewis Carroll, very interesting. You just convinced me that I have to read Alice (though you should know that that's not a difficult thing to do ).

[Snowdog]

Originally Posted by Lenya

Snowdog, would you please give a comment on George R.R. Martin. Are his books as good as I've heard? Because I really want to read it but don't know if it is good or bad fantasy - I keep my distance from bad fantasy.

Well, I would if I ever get to reading them. I had Game of Thrones by my chair ofor months now, and I only read through the Prologue and the first chapter. It seems to have the makings of a good read, but for some reason I'm not gripped by it as I don't ever seem to have the desire to pick it up to read more.

[brownjenkins]

grr martin is probably more comparable to king arthur than tolkien-esk fantasy... much more about people and relationships than it is about any grand fantasy theme

that said, he is a very skilled writer, especially in terms of realistic characters... so much so, that the violence and cruelty exhibited by some of his characters might be a bit too much for some... but i don't think he is over-the-top, just maybe too realistic for some

i had to read a good few chapters before i got caught up in it... but after a while i was hooked... there are also some hints here and there about how the story might get a bit more fantasy-oriented as it continues (ancient evils, dragons, etc.)

so, it's definitely a very good series (so far), if you like arthurian-type legends (with the characters a good bit less noble )

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Terry Brooks said somewhere (total paraphrase) that "The Sword of Shannarah" (his first novel, written in 1977 IIRC) was a homage to "Lord of the Rings", or that it mirrored it. There's a thread on that somewhere.

I have read all of the books in the Shannarah series, and I love them! It is kind of annoying how high the body count is sometimes, but they're extremely gripping, suspenseful, and well-written. Even though you know 90% of the characters are going to be greusomely killed by unspeakable evil, you can't predict the rest of the plot.

I enjoyed a good deal the Shannara books as well. I read them all also . And I've read all the "Wheel of Time" books that have yet been released. I was fine with the body count in Shannara. The only thing that kept bothering me is one plot thread he repeated multiple times, and which I didn't like any of those times. The plot thread of having a brother to his hero being rather aloof, cold or harsh, something wrong with him, and then just as that brother is about to turn good, he gets killed off. I don't like that recurring plot thread. I do really enjoy the books, though . I wait in anticipation for his next release.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I'm not reading Robert Jordan until I hear he conclusively finishes the series. Tolkien may have been a little ambiguous about some things (1 or 2 Glorfindels, Balrog wings, Tom Bombadil), but at least his books have proper endings. You don't go insane after reading one.

*Cough*Two Towers*Cough*

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I have heard otherwise about Jordan.

One does frequently want to hear what happens next, after getting to the end of one of the books. That's true. I particularly remember how much in the mood I was for the next after "Winter's Heart." Not all of them are cliff-hangers, though.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

One does frequently want to hear what happens next, after getting to the end of one of the books. That's true. I particularly remember how much in the mood I was for the next after "Winter's Heart." Not all of them are cliff-hangers, though.

true, but some plot issues have been left open for a good ten-plus years now (many books)... and, in certain cases, i truely wonder if jordan will ever get around to wrapping up the loose ends

i'll say it again, he needs a good editor he respects... i appreciate his books a lot... he really is an entertaining writer... i just can't help thinking how much better his series could have been

[Jabberwock]

You're absolutely right there. Jordan is a good fantasy writer. I just find the books incredibly drawn out. Detail is one thing, but when it's drawn out to the point that you oftn find yourself wondering why you just read 100 pages which you yourself could summarize in one page, there is something wrong with the book. Jordan needs an editor badly. I still think he gets paid by the page.