[Tigger]

Whilst I agree with most of what has been said on the topic of Tolkien, everyone seems to have forgotten that without myths and legends, (Greek, Roman, Viking - you name it), there would be no fantasy stories at all. For the most part modern fantasy writing is directly influenced by the folk tales we've all heard in the guise of 'fairy stories'.

[Ravenlock]

that is one of the reasons why tolkien is so good. he was an expert on saxons(i think that is who is was0 and the time period they lived in. he knew all about thier myths and how they worked

[Cadfael]

Ok... an old topic, but one guy at the top there got it bang on with ER Eddison, the book was called 'The Worm Oroborus', it was IMO written in the 'Homer' style. I'll bet there has never been an ending in any fantasy book to match this one.

Eddison was around some years before Tolkien, but Tolkien got the jump on him with his publishing deal, a loop hole allowed 'grey' copies of TLOTR to hit the States long before the official publishing date. Eddison's deal was watertight and did not allow this.

I think Tolkien was the better book, but that is imaterial... the first modern fantasy book was by Eddison, by fantasy I mean with no historical basis, just a fairy tale for grown-ups

BTW... Thanx a hell of a lot BookFreak, for reminding me of this book... I have a poor, tired copy on my bookshelf, and it needs a hug http://www.sffworld.com/ubb/smile.gif

[This message has been edited by dennizm (edited January 05, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by dennizm (edited January 05, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by dennizm (edited January 05, 2001).]

[Pluvious]

First off, Cellandros, keep posting! You have some excellent insights.

I would like to first address magic before moving onto Tolkein. It seems the trend of authors and public opinion is to lessen the widespread use of magic in fantasy novels. Having magic be little more than superstition, dark and secrative, or merely archiac or lost to present day man is the trend. While this is fine I think its a bit overused.

There is nothing wrong with magic being common, at least to a degree. Certainly some secrecy is in order, depending on the type of magic system used. But what is really important is a well-done system of magic that is used consistently and planned out in some depth. "Showing" the reader where magical energy comes from, how hard the user must concentrate or research spells or rituals, and the orgin of magic-these are all ways to keep magic fresh and interesting throughout.

Magic can be mysterious if that is what the author wants. But it can also be another skill like fighting, reading minds, or whatever. What matters is that it is consistent and that it is in some way original.

[Pluvious]

About Tolkein:

I think Tolkein deserves a great deal of credit for what he has accomplished. However, I agree with others that he has certain flaws. In order to illustrate this I am going to quote some passages from "The Fellowship of the Ring" and analyze what in it I do not like.

1) "This book is largely concerned with Hobbits, and from its pages a reader may discover much of their character and a little of their history"

My problem with this is that I read fantasy to read the tales of "interesting" characters that I can "believe" will actually be having an impact-through their adventures-on a much larger world. If a hobbit wanted to have an adventure he should go hiking or something instead of going to try and save a world. And just because they are "reluctant" doesn't make it ok either. I wouldn't entrust my 12-year old sister to save the world either. It near reaks of silliness throughout...

2) "I fear those Black Riders, and I am sure it is unsafe to stay in one place long..."

This is one of many instances where I just want the characters to shut up and get going. You fear the black riders, eh? You should! And they should have killed you and taken the ring. You linger, you walk slowly, yet you survive. Geez, the first 100 pages of the book are in the shire, and although I enjoy the background of the hobbits and their culture-the pace does not pick up, and when it does I don't care because I don't care about the charcters. If you want to write a book about a certain culture and morality or survival or whatever, fine. But the hobbits as the mighty heroes-Come on!

I was going to do more but I don't feel like it. But don't misunderstand me, I like much of Tolkein's writing style, description, and world building-just not his characters, the people who make a reader want to share their lives for a time. His conversational language does become bothersome from time to time also.

[Bardos]

The Grandfather of Fantasy was Lord Dunsany. He wrote about elves and magical creatures *before* Tolkien. He was inspired by the Greens.
Three people I would call fathers of Fantasy, and they are J.R.R. Tolkien, H.P. Lovecraft, and R.E. Howard.
When Tolkien created orcs, elves, dwarves they were original, now I HATE them so much, 'cause so many writer have used them.
Also some people copy Tolkien, and they do it shamelessly. Jordan is one of those people. I know he has some ideas of his own, but the Dark One = Sauron, no? Trollocs = Orcs. And the whole style of the 1st book.
I, generaly, think that a writer is good one if he/she does not copy anyone (there is a difference between ispiration and copying), but has his/her own ideas. This way the Fantasy genre move on -it doesn't stick to some peoples thoughts.

[This message has been edited by Bardos (edited January 06, 2001).]

[allanon]

First-Cellandros,congrats from one"mad"fan of
Mercedes and McLaren!!!
Second-every author has fans,which think that he is the best-Tolkien,Jordan etc.I'm Feist fan.But...
I really enjoy Tolkien's works.I like him.But I don't think that he is the best.I think that Feist and Jordan are better.Why?
1]Because of the characters.Bilbo is a nice character,Frodo-too,but they are simple.What is the difference between Bilbo and Frodo?
2]Because of the dialogue.In LotR it is loke from poem,not real conversation.
3]The story is simple-Frodo must terminate the Ring and destroy Sauron.Im WoT or in the
"Riftwar Saga" it is not so simple.I was surprized when I found that the Enemy infact are Valheru.
And...Bardos,Jordan is different.He is not copying Tolkien.Look other books in WoT,not only "The Eye...".

[Bardos]

Allanon, I too am a Feist fan. I like Feist V.much (not as much as Moorcock, though).
But, about, Jordan... He *is* copying Tolkien. He started copying him in tEotW. Then, his story just *led* him in another, slightly different, direction. His world, though, is interesting -i must admit that. But his characters are badly drawn -and that is why he is inferior to Tolkien.
It is along time since I have read the LOTR, but Frodo and Bilbo left two very different images in my mind.
Tolkien's dialogue is like a poem, yes. So what? Maybe people talk that way in *his* world. Do Jordan's women seem like real our-world women to you? No, but they are real in *his* world (...though I can't understand how relationships between men and women in WOT world could ever work...).
Also, Tolkien's plot is not simple! In his time -when he wrote the book-, it was very original (neither R.E Howard, nor Lovecraft had wrote anything like it). If today we have one thousand save-the-world plots, don't say Tolkien's plot is simple; just say that people are inspired by Tolkien to write this things.
By the way, his world -Middle-Earth- is most remarkable. Just see the detail in it! Think you could have ever created such a detailed world -a *real* one? I think I cant't.
And you can't compaire Middle-Earth with WOT world. The second is interesting -the first is real!

[Tai'Shar]

Hey im new here, but I just read Bardos reply and ive got to get this out.

You say Robert Jordan *is* copying Tolkien and that his chararcters are badly drawn, I wish youd have placed some examples in your post where this is true.

The purpose of this post is in no way to discredit Tolkiens work ( because for a prototype, it was quite good ) but to defend that of Jordans. WOT I beleive today is unmatched anywhere in the fantasy world, no series at least that I have read ( and that is quite a few ) rivals it.

RJ has dominated the fantasy scene.
Yes... there i said it, he has he has he has!

I would like anyone out there to show me a series that is as large, as real, as detailed and as beliveable as Jordans.

If I offend well .......what can i do

[Cadfael]

Tai'Shar...Yes you are right Jordan HAS dominated the fantasy genre, GRR Martin IS dominating it at the present time however.

Long series as good as Jordan's... here's two... Goodkind's Sword of Truth, and Modesitt's Recluse series, you can add Martin to these two shortly. Please... don't fire back at me that the Goodkind and Modesitt books are not as good as Jordan...IMO it is even, and that, as they say "is only my opinion".

But, I recognise you have a right to an opinion, and I wiil stand at your side defending that right, but if you offend... what can you do?... apologise http://www.sffworld.com/ubb/smile.gif

Welcome to the forum...

[This message has been edited by dennizm (edited January 07, 2001).]