[allanon]

Pluvious,you are right about Tolkien and Jordan."He is the first" or "he writes big books" doesn't tell nothing.

[FitzChivalry]

yeah, i agree.. oh wait, i said that already a million times on other threads... so i guess i'll skip this post.

[Ntschotschi]

Maybe the reason why this topic comes up so often is,that it's a widespread bad habit of publishers to compare almost every prospective new author with Tolkien.
There are loads of covers with: He's the new Tolkien, the modern Tolkien, the best since Tolkien ... and so on.

[Cadfael]

Ntschotschi... I have noticed this, and I find it is always a let down, but I am a Tolkien fan, the one exeption was The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, this had the blurb "comparible to Tolkien at his best".

What it does is (like you say), put a particular book up against, or maybe I should say compare to, TLOTR, even though it may be a completely different concept of the genre. It also does give the impression that Tolkien is the absolute grand master of fantasy, and even though Tolkien is my favorite author, I think it is wrong to call him this. I think is why so many book emulate him, they think it is the 'classic' plot of fantasy, Donaldson is the only one to actually come close to emulating him, I guess you could say he very nearly 'out-Tolkiened', Tolkien.

[Pluvious]

Actually I have a completely different opinion of comparing two or more things-such as authors. Yes, the basic comparisons have been set down many times, and relate more or less to what a particular person's reading enjoyment comes down to. Some like Feist's style and story, some Jordan, some Tolkein, etc.

However, there are in fact deeper "reasons" as to why people like a certain author over another. It takes a little thinking and reflection to discover this, however, and what a person finds out may not particuarly please him.

For example, some people may simply like to read descriptions that they have seen over and over again. It makes reading easy and enjoyable...comforting and speedy. And there is certainly nothing wrong with this (I do myself in many instances), but people need to recognize this about themselves if they are to make comparisons or judgements.

Another example could be that you don't like certain character types, such as small hobbits in Tolkein (like myself), which immediately turns you off to a work. So you understand that and say it when you make a comparison with an author.

Of course these two examples are what we as readers do or do not like about authors, and are not really critiques of the authors themselves. Yet authors can be analyzed and compared. But this takes some skill and knowledge of writing. After many years of reading most people should have some of these skills.

For example, some authors do a "poor or unrealistic" job of portraying characters. This is a mistake, and there are such things as mistakes in the world. Where you work are there two people who do the same job, but one is clearly better? Of course. If a writer makes his characters come across as unreal then we as readers have a right to be skeptical or annoyed. I for one get upset with Jordan's female characters, for various reasons. They are abusive for no reason for one. Why do the males in the world put up with it? Does this make the male characters weak as well? I ask myself these questions after reading Jordan, and this only detracts from my reading experience.

As for another example of author's comparitive abilities-take basic writing syle. Is an author who uses cliches inferior to one who is original? Most people think so. What about authors who have more knowledge then others? Can you identify that and appreciate it? I certainly try to, and like it when I'm being shown something new. I also think dialogue that is identifable yet sound in context is sign of understanding as an author.

All of these factors must be considered to judge different authors. And yes, it can be done if you want to take the time. Not much of writing and style can be quantified or easily graded, yet there are signs that make it possible to see what is "good" and "bad". If you don't think you can judge fairly-fine-but don't say that it can't be done, or that it is entirely what each person in his "inner world" thinks. While opinions play a part, facts and recognition of what skill, beauty, and art is also plays a great role.

[Bardos]

Pluvious, I agree with most of your posting, but I must say that sometimes it is subjective if someone likes a book. You know, I like Tolkien writing,but I also think that it can be complicated and comfusing sometimes. On the other hand, Moorcock's style cannot be juged as complicated, but can be juged simplistic (thou' there is much philosophy in Moorcock's books). I like them both, and each one has his style. You can expect everything from someone. After all, when an author writes its like expresing his/her opinion.
Of course, the above doesn't, in any case, mean that characters/world/plot must be unbelievable and unrealistic. IMHO, they must be realistic, but fantastic also. E.g., a legendary warrior can slay a dragon in fantasy and be realistic, while in real world no man could ever slay a dragon, I think (if dragon existed, of course...). Another example: a man cannot defeat four in combat, in reality, but why not in fantasy? Of course, that man, even in fantasy, must be trained in the sword (or other weapon) and know its use quite well. I don't like things like a simple peasant slays three warriors -that is unrealistic for fantasy. Also, one trained in something must be good at it -and that is why I didn't like the Farsseer Trilogy: While Fitz was trained as a royal assassin, he couldn't get rib (or found it very, very difficult) of some guard, when it was needed.
A final thing, and I will stop, 'cause you will start to panic with this post. http://www.sffworld.com/ubb/smile.gif
I too hate to see in every books back: "Invites comparison with LOTR" - "He analyzed the world Tolkien begun to descover" - "Can be compared with Tolkien' s LOT" etc, etc, etc...
Why the publishers do it? But to attract people, of course: When you see this you'll think, since everyone knows Tolkien: "Hmmm... So, better than Tolkien, ha? Lets buy this book and see..."
Its hust an advertising trick, IMHO...

[This message has been edited by Bardos (edited January 09, 2001).]

[FitzChivalry]

pluvious, sure you can compare books to each other and authors to each others, but most of what we get here is "Tolkien is the best" "No, Feist is better" which is kind of pointless, if you want to make a relevant comparisson you or anybody else are invited to do so and then we will have to fight your arguements with something more than "Feist is the best", but that was also done in another thread and i don't think one person became convinced that his former opinion was wrong.

[Thoughtcriminal84]

since the topic seems to have shifted somewhat into the territory of analyzing writing styles (which is what I think this whole thing is about) I'm curious...Have any of you read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by robert pirsig? It talks at great length about the elusive Quality that we all can recognize but can't define in things such as writing, or art. I read that book ten years ago, and am always amazed at how often those ideas come back to me...but I digress. The basic question of this string, translated into Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality (forgive me if you don't know what the hell i'm talking about) comes out like this: Do Tolkiens books have Quality?

The answer is yes. Bags of it, in fact. But having established that (almost universally, i would think...i doubt anyone would truthfully say that Tolkiens works are without quality) we are thus forced to ask: If Tolkien books are of Quality, then why do some people not like them?

This is not so easily answered, but I think it has to do with values. For example, I value Tolkiens lyrical, conversational way of writing. Others do not. I am personally fascinated by the language he created because something about me values this avenue of thought...but other people don't value it in the same way I do.
As many times as it's been said before, it's worth repeating that it's all a game of opinions, or in this case, values. I personally love William S. Burroughs, but many of my friends can't stand his work, because it's so non-linear. But i don't read him for the weird plot. I read him for his words (His Word Virus has infected me, i'm afraid) Similarly, I don't read Tolkien for the plot, because I've seen that all before. Doesn't matter to me if you say he was the first to do it or the twenty thousandth...I've seen it before. No, I read tolkien for his words.

Now, ON the OTHER hand...I read George R.R. Martin for his Words and for his Plot... so I value him more as an author...if you can make the words sing AND knock me on my ass with a killer story, I'll REALLY value you.
But, again, I digress.

Tolkien is a great author, heavily influenced by mythology and linguistic studies. He has flaws, but most of those could be considered to be of a subjective nature, all in the eye of the beholder. (Where the hell am I going with this? This is what happens when you write a post after drinking sangria)

I'll just shut up then. http://www.sffworld.com/ubb/smile.gif

[FitzChivalry]

Hehe, naa, you made sense, don't worry.
Everything is a game of opinions.
I'd read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance but i hear you need patience and attention span to read that book... two things i'm afraid i don't possess

[Pluvious]

There is also a book Zen and archery, which is one of the next books I plan on reading.

I have also read a book on Buddhism, which stresses not comparing or desiring but just living and being. But, to live in our society and relate to others around us we must analyze and compare in order to give meaning and realize our own happiness, unlike the buddhist. If you can live this way, fine, more power to you.

Anyway, my point is that things can be compared and that everything is given a qualification or rating in our society. Originality is termed positive because it requires more thought than a well used cliche, unless used ironically and well. Putting a sentence together well is "better" than a run-on.

You can say there are no facts, there is not good or bad, and you can say you can't compare one thing to another-you can even say there is no morality or no reason for critical thinking. But, to live and relate to others in our society you must understand that these are reocgnized symbols (which is what words are also), and that they have meaning which relates people to people, ideas to people, and ideas to ideas.

Yes, we may have our own values, but we can also identify the values of others. This is the art of thinking. If you don't want to think then fine. But if you find critical thinking a part of society and yourself, then you are more than capable of comparisons between anything.

The real trick is sorting things out and not giving into the false idea of people being different...