Tolkien compared to other writers

[Lenya]

I just read Song of Ice & Fire book I and II - it was GREAT!! I loved it so much, it kills me not continue with the next book, but I'll be strong and wait till after my exams *grumble, grumble* I will even go as far as to say that Martin now shares the position of 'favourite writer' with Tolkien

Martin - for his excellent plots, characters and utter unpredictability. His writing is gripping and so believable. Amaizing.
Tolkien - for his poetic writing style. No one's work is more beautiful and breathtaking than his.

[Finrod Felagund]

I've found that so much modern fantasy intentionally or not, imitates Tolkien, (writing style, character stereotypes etc.)...its like The Lord of the Rings is the Modern Fantasy Bible.

[Jabberwock]

I have to agree with Finrod. Most, especially the fantasy produced in the 70s and 80s and much more recently. Jumping up to Lenya's post above Finrod's, though, I think Song of Fire and Ice is a refreshing fantasy from the majority of stuff produced lately. It has some tolkienesque features, but its attitude, its interests, and its mood are much different. It has a quality of writing that approaches tolkien's own but offers a very different and, for me, more satisfying read. To compare tolkien to the bible is accurate, but therein lies its flaw. Its like reading the bible. You need to be in the right mood for it. I didn't mean to turn this into a Martin vs Tolkien thing, but Martin is a lot more readable and enjoyable. There's a distancing factor in Tolkien that keeps you away from all but a few of his characters.

One other thing... I'm wondering if modern readers of the 'mega-epic', a la Wheel of Time (pure crap), are ever gonna start referring to LotR as too short. I remember a time when I was in highschool that everyone thought LotR was too long.

[Falagar]

There's a lot of great fantasy out there that has little in common with Tolkien. The above-mentioned Martin, R. Scott Bakker, Neil Gaiman, Steven Eriksson, Robin Hobb and China Miéville, among others.

[BeardofPants]

Yep, you'll find that the more you delve into the "good stuff" the less like Tolkien it actually is. China Mieville's a good example of this.

[Jabberwock]

I have to say I really like China Meiville's writing style, but the books themselves, the stories, aren't really all that interesting. Perdido Street Station for instance... I just couldn't get into the whole romance between the bug woman and the scientist. I'm not a fan of writers in who's books everyone has to be deformed, ugly, or disgusting in some fashion. Neil Gaiman, on the other hand is a much more enjoyable and interesting writer even though, technically, I think he's a poorer writer. They do both deviate from Tolkien enough that I'd say there is not real correlation. I'm not actually that big a fan of Tolkien either, for that matter. His style is dry and unemotional, a lot more like the myth cycles he borrows his stories from than modern writing.

[Falagar]

China is a brilliant writer, though I agree his plots aren't that interesting. Though his writing makes up for it, IMO. The love-story between Isaac and Lin was a bit shocking at first, but didn't bother me once I got past my first reaction.

Iron Council had a more interesting story (though the ending was the most anti-climatic piece of work I've ever read), but I enjoyed the characters in Perdido Street more.

[Jabberwock]

Yeah, his writing is amazingly good. I loved the intro to Perdido Street Station. Beautiful and evocative. I'm just not into the whole mess of weirdness going on there, bug people, etc. Not my thing.

[EarthBound]

I just finished reading Mike Jefferies Trilogy that begins with "Road to Underfall" and ends with "Shadowlight". Fairly good, kept my attention. But let’s be honest, while there are plenty of decent fantasy trilogies (and such), the depth just of story will never match JRRT…no way. I enjoyed “The Dark Tower” series, the “Circle of Light”, and several others, but I don’t place them in the same realm as LOTR. IMHO

[Lady Marion Magdalena]

I think you mean depth of world rather than depth of story there. Many fantasy stories have as much or more depth than the story in LotR, but very few are set in such a well developed world.

[Curubethion]

Originally Posted by Lady Marion Magdalena

I think you mean depth of world rather than depth of story there. Many fantasy stories have as much or more depth than the story in LotR, but very few are set in such a well developed world.

One of those few being Wheel of Time...(I admit it! I'm a WOTmaniac! )
Seriously, though, its world is very detailed, much more than Tolkien, even. The cultures and customs are very nuanced and well-made, especially the Aiel. And then the plotlines are...VERY complex. I lose track.

[Falagar]

Seriously, though, its world is very detailed, much more than Tolkien, even. The cultures and customs are very nuanced and well-made, especially the Aiel. And then the plotlines are...VERY complex. I lose track.

I'd agree that Jordan may be more detailed than Tolkien, but I don't necessarily think that's a good thing. And I'd disagree with the cultures being well-made, all of them seem to consist of stubborn, arrogant men and stubborn, arrogant and obnoxious women. The biggest difference I see between the Aiel and the others is that the Aiel are even more stubborn and arrogant than the rest, and actually have a few reasons for being that.

Then again, my memory of Jordan may have been slightly tinted.

[Curubethion]

Haha...an apt description. But personally I thought that ji'e'toh was a brilliant invention. In addition, the Shienarians were a fairly well thought-out culture, based primarily on Asian culture. Their sword-moves were really cool...
And then you had the Sea Folk...admittedly I got surprised at first when they displayed their choice of clothing...

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I'm reading a book on Tolkien, and the author states that one reason that Tolkien is so superior to the vast majority of modern fantasy is that he really and truly takes his stories seriously, whereas they tend to smirk behind their hand.

Thoughts, anyone?

[GreyMouser]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

I'm reading a book on Tolkien, and the author states that one reason that Tolkien is so superior to the vast majority of modern fantasy is that he really and truly takes his stories seriously, whereas they tend to smirk behind their hand.

Thoughts, anyone?

I don't think so- if anything, most of the post-Tolkien multi-volume series take themselves far too seriously.

I think it's mostly to do with talent.

[Earniel]

I agree with GreyMouser. I think many modern writers do take their stories seriously. But I also think that Tolkien in most cases showed more dedication to his stories and poured more time in providing his world with details and a vast history.

Tolkien also had the benefit of being a relative 'first' writer in the genre. Modern writers have much more competition -strong competition too- in the fantasy-field. It gets harder to do something never-done-before.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

He certainly poured more time into his work..how about 60+ years...

I don't know about doing something never-done-before; it certainly doesn't seem to me to be by any stretch necessary, and I'm not at all sure it's possible. But even if it is possible to do SNDB, I think it's unnecessary. It only needs to be good, not necessarily original. Tolkien of course borrowed heavily from Nordic myths, and a lot of the stories were not really SNDB, having been in ancient myth long before Tolkien used them.

[Earniel]

Indeed, one doesn't have to be original to write good stories. But IMO one doesn't need specifically new material to write something never-done-before. You can use existing, even ages-old material but use it in a completely novel way.

The way Tolkien forged a complex millenia-long history to his world is quite astonishing, and something I deem hadn't been done before. Even mythologies do, as far as I remember some of them anyway, don't run across so many thousands of years with so much detail.

I've only seen the history of a world added in post-Tolkien works. It adds a sense of realism to a fantasy-world, makes it less of a mere stage for a story. Now it almost is a template for high-profile fantasy-books.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Indeed, one doesn't have to be original to write good stories. But IMO one doesn't need specifically new material to write something never-done-before. You can use existing, even ages-old material but use it in a completely novel way.

The way Tolkien forged a complex millenia-long history to his world is quite astonishing, and something I deem hadn't been done before. Even mythologies do, as far as I remember some of them anyway, don't run across so many thousands of years with so much detail.

I've only seen the history of a world added in post-Tolkien works. It adds a sense of realism to a fantasy-world, makes it less of a mere stage for a story. Now it almost is a template for high-profile fantasy-books.

I know. It kinda makes you sad, to see people just throwing things like that in as stock nowadays.

But anyway, while one could say that Tolkien's work as a whole was never-done-before, a lot of the stories (specifically Turin Turambar) were close enough to the mythic originals that I think they are substantially the same, but still of superb quality. Hence, proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that, as we said, originality isn't necessary.

[Earniel]

It's synergy, the sum of the stories is more than merely the seperate story-elements together.