Its unfair!! - Page 3

Ñólendil · 01-08-2002, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Robert Jordan, for example (sorry Dylan) just seems to get worse and worse the more he writes.

Sorry because you stole me observation? Ofcourse it gets worse and worse! I didn't even read the latest book in The Wheel of Time, but my dad did and he says he doesn't recommend it to anyone. The Wheel of Time slowly degraded and ... yes! It is a piece of **** now.

I first got Harry Potter (the three that were then available) as a present from my aunts in Oregon. I didn't want to read them because of how mainstream they were. I didn't want to read anything that was on Rosie O'Donnells favourite book list. But eventually my dad told me how cool it was and I started reading and I loved it. I had just got done with what was available in the depressing increasingly slow Wheel of Time series, and HP was refreshing. It's now my second favourites 'fantasy', if that's what it is (the author doesn't think so).

Edited: We really need to fix the filter. C-r-a-p is not a curse word! What do you want me to say? Doody?

bropous · 01-09-2002, 12:02 AM

"I didn't want to read anything that was on Rosie O'Donnells favourite book list."

Inolondil, I KNEW I liked you right off! I don't want to read anything that cow has even touched...hopefully LotR is over her bovine head. I bet she's "Gollum"!

"Edited: We really need to fix the filter. C-r-a-p is not a curse word! What do you want me to say? Doody?"

Hmmm... Poopie? Caca? Mess? Stinkies? Fecal remanants? How about "Rosie O'Donnell?" LOL!

That's it..."The Wheel of Time slowly degraded and ... yes! It is a piece of Rosie ODonnell now."

Ñólendil · 01-09-2002, 03:36 AM

Hehehe, I don't dislike her that much. I just really want nothing to do with her book list.

She actually has read the Lord of the Rings, and she loves it. She told Sean Astin when he was on that it's the greatest fantasy of all time, or something along those lines. She seems to be a fantasy fan.

bropous · 01-09-2002, 12:26 PM

Oh, great, Inoldonil, you ruined my morning, and now I must go vomit, then burn all my Tolkien books!

Just kidding...I'll just vomit. LOL!

Wayfarer · 01-09-2002, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bropous
Who exactly are the "Eddingses", and what books did they write? I'm curious.

As jersydevil said, David and Leigh Eddings. The older publications are 'by David Eddings' while the newer ones are 'By David and Leigh Eddings'

The Belgariad and the Mallorean are thier best [and best known] work. They also wrote the Elenium an the Tamuli, which arepretty good Psuedo Medieval Fantasy, if you can stand the religious aspect. And, if you want something a bit shorter, thier latest is called 'The Redemption of Althalus' and is incredible.

Quote:

Originally posted by bropous
Actually, the books I've found which have at least remotely the level of detail and creativity that Tolkien fashioned into his books are the "Dune" books by Frank Herbert, and then continued by his son, Brian Herbert, in collaboration with Kevin J. Anderson.

I have read all the dune books, and I agree with you that the World [or Universe] is quite well crafted. My major problems are the recurring themes (The first few books were about drugs, the last few were about Sex), the lack of anything resembling real characters or character development, and the fact that, like Jordan, his writing is horrible at times.

On the other hand, the recent prequels by his son and co I found to be very well written. I liked them better than any of the originals (although the first and hte last two of those originals were passable)

Quote:

Originally posted by bropous
As for the "Thomas Covenant" series by Stephen Donaldson, of which I have a signed copy of "The One Tree", I liked them as I read them initially, but in retrospect, the fact that the hero/anti-hero, Thomas Covenant, is a rapist, absolutely sickens me. I felt my skin crawling as I read them, and yet I DID cry at the demise of the Giants, and the victories of Lord Foul. They are quite well-crafted, although they are a knock-off of Tolkien, but it just turns me off in my more mature years that I would have not thrown down the first book at the rape of Lena. I don't read books like that anymore. The second trilogy in that series, I found, was a complete let-down, with the Sun-disease and the Rukhs and bloodletting and so forth.

Those books did have thier good parts, but all in all, they're dull and dreary. Considering the friend at who's suggestion I read them (Morthoron), I wonder why I picked them up at all. I did not read the second series.

I won't argue about Lord of the Rings. I fell for middle earth years agon, hook, line, and sinker. Greatest fiction of all time, and better than most nonficton I've read.

Wow... aren't we off topic? ]: )

bropous · 01-09-2002, 06:42 PM

Wow. I found exactly the opposite about character development in the Herbert books. And as for "drugs", I never really thought of Melange as a real "drug," with its negative connotations, only the "semuta" music/drug combo.

bit I'll keep the Eddings books in mind. Thanks for the suggestion, and in return, I suggest Michael Moorcock's "Corum" trilogy: Knight of the Swords, Queen of the Swords, and King of the Swords. Also, the Elric of Melnibone series by Moorcock. Not a very detailed world, but VERY interesting. At least for me. The whole "eternal champion" concept I found quite fascinating.

Eruviel Greenleaf · 01-11-2002, 03:55 AM

I've read Harry Potter, and I think they're pretty good books, but they aren't even on the same level as LotR--they aren't exactly just for kids, but LotR is so much deeper and. . .Well, I'm just repeating stuff other people have said. . .but basically the only way I think they compare is with the movies in the box office

bropous · 01-11-2002, 11:55 AM

Welcome to the Moot, Eruviel Greenleaf, O Hobbit of the Great Northwest...

***Earniel*** · 01-14-2002, 07:10 PM

I have only read the first Potter -book so I can only judge it by that. I consider it for mainly for children (but if you say that the later books get more dark I'll have to take your word for that) But it definately wasn't a bad book, I enjoyed although I found a lot of simularities with an other book I once read (I think it was from Horrowitz)

Secondly I don't think they can be compared( and I'm glad most of you agree with it), they are totally different. Tolkien is medieval fantasy and Potter is urban (modern if you will) fantasy

And third (relax, it'll be the last one) This is just my opinion, based on gut-feeling and not on facts: Tolkien managed to give his books a certain debt, reality that I believe Potter will never reach

Menelvagor · 01-14-2002, 08:49 PM

Another series that's a good example of the Dune/Wheel of Time type is George R R Martin's Song of Fire and Ice. It's a very good story, so far as it's gone (waiting for the third book), but it slowly degrades into the old 'Sex and Violence' routine. Have you every noticed that once an author puts sex into a story, they can't stop, there's always more later?

sepulchrave · 01-15-2002, 02:07 AM

Moorcocks "Gloriana" is the best of his I've read, but it was so heavily influenced by the masterpiece by Mervyn Peake, the Titus books, that I'll vote for the latter to stand beside Tolkiens work. CS Lewises scifi "out of the Silent Planet", "Perelandra", and "That Hideous Strength" are right up there too, although they are not exactly fantasy in the classic sense. As for Rowlings, I have not read her work.

luinilwen · 01-15-2002, 02:58 AM

i would just like to respond to the earlier arguments in this thread that jk rowling "stole" her ideas of witchcraft wizardry etc. from earlier sources: shakespeare never came up with original plot lines. he was the greatest plagiarist of all times, but no-one questions his credibility as he wrote some whoppingly good poetry.

as for rowling, i have to whole-heartedly disagree that her works are "unoriginal". rowling too created a whole little world with its wonderful little details and came up with some highly enjoyable stories. would you rather read novels written by some "author" who just creates pale "recreations" of LOTR?

ok i think im gibbering on a bit... ta ta

***Earniel*** · 01-15-2002, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by luinilwen
i would just like to respond to the earlier arguments in this thread that jk rowling "stole" her ideas of witchcraft wizardry etc. from earlier sources: shakespeare never came up with original plot lines. he was the greatest plagiarist of all times, but no-one questions his credibility as he wrote some whoppingly good poetry.

Just for the record,I never said that she stole her ideas. It's nearly impossible to come up with something brand new. Even Tolkien took some ideas from myths and other stories. Everything is already written once by somebody. Or that's more or less everything. The art is to give it a new twist ,a new perspective or even a personal touch.

bropous · 01-15-2002, 05:45 PM

Shakespeare? Will Shakespeare was an illiterate who couldn't sign his own name....don't you mean Bacon?

athelas · 01-16-2002, 12:22 PM

I have to say im rather slow in responding to this thread, but being both a Harry Potter and LotR fan here's my two cents worth:

Im rather new to the fantasy genre and I find HP unique, nothing like what ive ever read before. Even if there are other books are somewhat similar, the HP books are still unique as no two work of two writers are exactly the same. Different people have different ideas. As to Rowling stealing witchcraft and wizardry ideas, I feel that such things have been existent since medieval times. Its difficult to write about totally foreign things and ideas and expect people to except them. There must be some familiar ground.

But I agree that LotR has so much more depth than HP, and HP will probably never reach its depth. But I feel those 2 shouldn't be compared like this. They're books which appeal to different audiences. Some people might prefer HP to LotR as they might not be able to understand LotR's depth and prefer a more light-hearted. Or maybe they just dislike it, whether they can understand it or not. Its all a matter of opinion.

Sorry for crapping so much. I was just bored.

JenniferTook · 01-18-2002, 04:30 AM

As a fan of both Tolkien's and Rowling's work, I do wonder why these two are compared so much. I mean, I understand that they're stories have things in common...unlikely hero....evil Dark Lord...etc. But they are so far from each other, it isn't funny. Rowling has wonderful plot twists and interesting characters, but her work could hardly be called beautiful. Tolkien has the twists, the characters and his writing is beautiful, complicated and very adult. I do think that Harry Potter can be for adults, but I don't think that Lotr can really be for children. They can read it obviously, but it would be very difficult to get through. Rowling is a crafty writer, but Tolkien is a skillful writer. Ok, so what I am saying is that I just don't think they are in the same category. I believe they are enjoyed on different levels. I know I did. Harry Potter is extremely fun, but it is not a very complex world and it exists in this world, only hidden from our eyes. Tolkien, on the other hand, invents a completely new world complete with original creatures and languages. Two very different worlds.

Jennifer

01-09-2002, 12:02 AM	#2
bropous EIDRIORCQWSDAKLMED DCWWTIWOATTOPWFIO Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Littleton, CO Posts: 1,176	"I didn't want to read anything that was on Rosie O'Donnells favourite book list." Inolondil, I KNEW I liked you right off! I don't want to read anything that cow has even touched...hopefully LotR is over her bovine head. I bet she's "Gollum"! "Edited: We really need to fix the filter. C-r-a-p is not a curse word! What do you want me to say? Doody?" Hmmm... Poopie? Caca? Mess? Stinkies? Fecal remanants? How about "Rosie O'Donnell?" LOL! That's it..."The Wheel of Time slowly degraded and ... yes! It is a piece of Rosie ODonnell now." __________________ "...[The Lord of the Rings] is to exemplify most clearly a recurrent theme: the place in 'world politics' of the unforeseen and unforeseeable acts of will, and deeds of virtue of the apparently small, ungreat, fogotten in the places of the Wise and Great (good as well as evil). A moral of the whole (after the primary symbolism of the Ring, as the will to mere power, seeking to make itself objective by physical force and mechanism, and so also inevitably by lies) is the obvious one that without the high and noble the simple and vulgar is utterly mean; and without the simple and ordinary the noble and heroic is meaningless." Letters of JRR Tolkien, page 160.

01-09-2002, 03:36 AM	#3
Ñólendil Elf Lord Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: California Posts: 60,865	Hehehe, I don't dislike her that much. I just really want nothing to do with her book list. She actually has read the Lord of the Rings, and she loves it. She told Sean Astin when he was on that it's the greatest fantasy of all time, or something along those lines. She seems to be a fantasy fan. __________________ Falmon -- Dylan

01-09-2002, 12:26 PM	#4
bropous EIDRIORCQWSDAKLMED DCWWTIWOATTOPWFIO Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Littleton, CO Posts: 1,176	Oh, great, Inoldonil, you ruined my morning, and now I must go vomit, then burn all my Tolkien books! Just kidding...I'll just vomit. LOL! __________________ "...[The Lord of the Rings] is to exemplify most clearly a recurrent theme: the place in 'world politics' of the unforeseen and unforeseeable acts of will, and deeds of virtue of the apparently small, ungreat, fogotten in the places of the Wise and Great (good as well as evil). A moral of the whole (after the primary symbolism of the Ring, as the will to mere power, seeking to make itself objective by physical force and mechanism, and so also inevitably by lies) is the obvious one that without the high and noble the simple and vulgar is utterly mean; and without the simple and ordinary the noble and heroic is meaningless." Letters of JRR Tolkien, page 160.

01-09-2002, 06:42 PM	#6
bropous EIDRIORCQWSDAKLMED DCWWTIWOATTOPWFIO Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Littleton, CO Posts: 1,176	Wow. I found exactly the opposite about character development in the Herbert books. And as for "drugs", I never really thought of Melange as a real "drug," with its negative connotations, only the "semuta" music/drug combo. bit I'll keep the Eddings books in mind. Thanks for the suggestion, and in return, I suggest Michael Moorcock's "Corum" trilogy: Knight of the Swords, Queen of the Swords, and King of the Swords. Also, the Elric of Melnibone series by Moorcock. Not a very detailed world, but VERY interesting. At least for me. The whole "eternal champion" concept I found quite fascinating. __________________ "...[The Lord of the Rings] is to exemplify most clearly a recurrent theme: the place in 'world politics' of the unforeseen and unforeseeable acts of will, and deeds of virtue of the apparently small, ungreat, fogotten in the places of the Wise and Great (good as well as evil). A moral of the whole (after the primary symbolism of the Ring, as the will to mere power, seeking to make itself objective by physical force and mechanism, and so also inevitably by lies) is the obvious one that without the high and noble the simple and vulgar is utterly mean; and without the simple and ordinary the noble and heroic is meaningless." Letters of JRR Tolkien, page 160.

01-11-2002, 11:55 AM	#8
bropous EIDRIORCQWSDAKLMED DCWWTIWOATTOPWFIO Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Littleton, CO Posts: 1,176	Welcome to the Moot, Eruviel Greenleaf, O Hobbit of the Great Northwest... __________________ "...[The Lord of the Rings] is to exemplify most clearly a recurrent theme: the place in 'world politics' of the unforeseen and unforeseeable acts of will, and deeds of virtue of the apparently small, ungreat, fogotten in the places of the Wise and Great (good as well as evil). A moral of the whole (after the primary symbolism of the Ring, as the will to mere power, seeking to make itself objective by physical force and mechanism, and so also inevitably by lies) is the obvious one that without the high and noble the simple and vulgar is utterly mean; and without the simple and ordinary the noble and heroic is meaningless." Letters of JRR Tolkien, page 160.

01-11-2002, 03:55 AM	#7
Eruviel Greenleaf Alcoholic Villain-Fancying Elf Pirate Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Lyonesse Posts: 4,547	I've read Harry Potter, and I think they're pretty good books, but they aren't even on the same level as LotR--they aren't exactly just for kids, but LotR is so much deeper and. . .Well, I'm just repeating stuff other people have said. . .but basically the only way I think they compare is with the movies in the box office

01-14-2002, 07:10 PM	#9
*Earniel* The Chocoholic Sea Elf Administrator Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: N?n in Eilph (Belgium) Posts: 14,363	I have only read the first Potter -book so I can only judge it by that. I consider it for mainly for children (but if you say that the later books get more dark I'll have to take your word for that) But it definately wasn't a bad book, I enjoyed although I found a lot of simularities with an other book I once read (I think it was from Horrowitz) Secondly I don't think they can be compared( and I'm glad most of you agree with it), they are totally different. Tolkien is medieval fantasy and Potter is urban (modern if you will) fantasy And third (relax, it'll be the last one) This is just my opinion, based on gut-feeling and not on facts: Tolkien managed to give his books a certain debt, reality that I believe Potter will never reach

01-14-2002, 08:49 PM	#10
Menelvagor Elf Lord Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: lurking on the edge of conversations Posts: 924	This is off-topic but... Another series that's a good example of the Dune/Wheel of Time type is George R R Martin's Song of Fire and Ice. It's a very good story, so far as it's gone (waiting for the third book), but it slowly degrades into the old 'Sex and Violence' routine. Have you every noticed that once an author puts sex into a story, they can't stop, there's always more later?

01-15-2002, 02:07 AM	#11
sepulchrave Enting Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: vancouver island, BC, Canada Posts: 58	Moorcocks "Gloriana" is the best of his I've read, but it was so heavily influenced by the masterpiece by Mervyn Peake, the Titus books, that I'll vote for the latter to stand beside Tolkiens work. CS Lewises scifi "out of the Silent Planet", "Perelandra", and "That Hideous Strength" are right up there too, although they are not exactly fantasy in the classic sense. As for Rowlings, I have not read her work.

01-15-2002, 02:58 AM	#12
luinilwen Elven Warrior Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Sydney AUSTRALIA Posts: 368	i would just like to respond to the earlier arguments in this thread that jk rowling "stole" her ideas of witchcraft wizardry etc. from earlier sources: shakespeare never came up with original plot lines. he was the greatest plagiarist of all times, but no-one questions his credibility as he wrote some whoppingly good poetry. as for rowling, i have to whole-heartedly disagree that her works are "unoriginal". rowling too created a whole little world with its wonderful little details and came up with some highly enjoyable stories. would you rather read novels written by some "author" who just creates pale "recreations" of LOTR? ok i think im gibbering on a bit... ta ta

01-15-2002, 05:45 PM	#14
bropous EIDRIORCQWSDAKLMED DCWWTIWOATTOPWFIO Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Littleton, CO Posts: 1,176	Shakespeare? Will Shakespeare was an illiterate who couldn't sign his own name....don't you mean Bacon? __________________ "...[The Lord of the Rings] is to exemplify most clearly a recurrent theme: the place in 'world politics' of the unforeseen and unforeseeable acts of will, and deeds of virtue of the apparently small, ungreat, fogotten in the places of the Wise and Great (good as well as evil). A moral of the whole (after the primary symbolism of the Ring, as the will to mere power, seeking to make itself objective by physical force and mechanism, and so also inevitably by lies) is the obvious one that without the high and noble the simple and vulgar is utterly mean; and without the simple and ordinary the noble and heroic is meaningless." Letters of JRR Tolkien, page 160.

01-16-2002, 12:22 PM	#15
athelas Enting Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The Twilight Meres Posts: 87	I have to say im rather slow in responding to this thread, but being both a Harry Potter and LotR fan here's my two cents worth: Im rather new to the fantasy genre and I find HP unique, nothing like what ive ever read before. Even if there are other books are somewhat similar, the HP books are still unique as no two work of two writers are exactly the same. Different people have different ideas. As to Rowling stealing witchcraft and wizardry ideas, I feel that such things have been existent since medieval times. Its difficult to write about totally foreign things and ideas and expect people to except them. There must be some familiar ground. But I agree that LotR has so much more depth than HP, and HP will probably never reach its depth. But I feel those 2 shouldn't be compared like this. They're books which appeal to different audiences. Some people might prefer HP to LotR as they might not be able to understand LotR's depth and prefer a more light-hearted. Or maybe they just dislike it, whether they can understand it or not. Its all a matter of opinion. Sorry for crapping so much. I was just bored. __________________ Farewell sweet earth and nortern sky, for ever blest,since here did lie and here with lissom limbs did run beneath the Moon, beneath the Sun, Lùthien Tinùviel more fair than mortal tongue can tell. Though all to ruin fell the world and were dissolved and backward hurled unmade into old abyss, yet were its making good, for this-- the dusk, the dawn, the earth, the sea-- that Lùthien for a time should be. "I am glad you are here with me. Here at the end of all things, Sam."-Frodo FRODO LIVES!!! (erm...Sam does too, right?)

01-18-2002, 04:30 AM	#16
JenniferTook Hobbit Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Kentucky Posts: 21	As a fan of both Tolkien's and Rowling's work, I do wonder why these two are compared so much. I mean, I understand that they're stories have things in common...unlikely hero....evil Dark Lord...etc. But they are so far from each other, it isn't funny. Rowling has wonderful plot twists and interesting characters, but her work could hardly be called beautiful. Tolkien has the twists, the characters and his writing is beautiful, complicated and very adult. I do think that Harry Potter can be for adults, but I don't think that Lotr can really be for children. They can read it obviously, but it would be very difficult to get through. Rowling is a crafty writer, but Tolkien is a skillful writer. Ok, so what I am saying is that I just don't think they are in the same category. I believe they are enjoyed on different levels. I know I did. Harry Potter is extremely fun, but it is not a very complex world and it exists in this world, only hidden from our eyes. Tolkien, on the other hand, invents a completely new world complete with original creatures and languages. Two very different worlds. Jennifer

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Muslims	Sween	General Messages	992	04-11-2006 11:04 AM
The worst change in FOTR	Gloer	Lord of the Rings Movies	215	09-27-2005 02:17 PM
To Lin, with Love from SA	Baby-K	General Messages	12	02-02-2004 02:23 AM
Should evolution be taught in schools?	IronParrot	General Messages	1363	07-29-2003 04:16 AM
were the valar unfair?	afro-elf	The Silmarillion	26	03-22-2003 03:06 PM