LOTR, Hobbit geek-fest

[MililaniBuckeye]

There's just one Tolkien.

I think you just wrote yourself a new custom user title...

 

[buckeyegrad]

The amount of arcane knowledge of ancient languages he learned at Oxford and elsewhere that he put into the work is frightening. He was a very well respected expert in philology and poetry (he was one of the foremost experts on the study of Beowulf) before the stories he wrote for his kids were discovered by an editor.

Have you read his academic essay on Beowulf: "The Monster and the Critics"? Worth the read IMO. Offers an insightful critique of what is lost in literature when we take textual deconstruction too far.

 

[knapplc]

I think some of the criticism is a little unfair, certainly some changes seemed unnecessary but I think other's were more reasonable if you think about trying to translate a story from a book to film form. I think you are a little bit more constricted as a story teller when your trying to make a movie.

For instance the bit about the dead's involvement in the battle of pellenor fields. It might come off as a little bit cheesy but it gave them a plot tool to "swing" the fight in an abrupt manner (much like Gandolf riding in at helms deep, or the destruction of the ring sinking Sauron's army at the black gate). The way that Tolkien wrote it works in a book very well in bookform, but to just have Aragorn, his kin and the sons of elrond showing up to the fight..it would them quite awhile to clear our all the orcs and what have you. How do you show that on screen? You don't have 6 hours to devote to a war scene but how much do you skip ahead without makes the audience feel like too much occurred off screen? Now not including the Son's of Elrond or Aragorn's kin at all was an unnecessary cut..at the very least have them show up to the showdown at the black gate or something.

Similarly with the Frodo-Shelob thing..yes that would have made an excellent cliff hanger to the Two Towers just like in the book and the whole Faramir bit was a little inconsistent with the character. The problem with having the Shelob thing be the end of the two towers is kind of two fold. In the books of course they tell the Frodo story and the Aragorn+crew story seperately, in the movies they are telling the stories as they are happening cutting back and forth. Meaning in the movies they are constricted to telling both stories as they occur. So logicially in order to advance Frodo's story in the movie farther ahead, and they would have to also advance the Aragorn and crew story ahead. But I think their real issue here was ensuring Frodo had a bigger part in ROTK. After the Shelob bit all that essentially happens on that end is Sam's rescue, some walking through Mordor and then of course scaling the mountain, dropping the ring in etc. As a result of that, we would have gone very long periods of time in the movie without Frodo really having much involvement in a story where he is supposed to be the most important character.


Obviously I don't think I need to explain why the scouring of the shire didn't need to be in the movie..was really sort of anticlimactic and would have came off corny in the story telling. Not having Tom Bombadil was disappointing, but I think that character would have been a little bit tricky to explain the significance of without coming off kind of cheesy.

The Battle of the Pelennor Fields didn't need the Dead one bit. The story as written by Tolkien was perfect - the coastal people were freed from the necessity of defending their shores by Aragorn and the Dead, who fulfilled their oath by routing the Corsairs at Pelargir. They captured the ships and sailed upriver along the breeze from Valinor, sent to push back the Darkness of Sauron. As they arrived at the quay, the joy of the forces of Mordor are energized as the reinforcing ships they looked for arrived. That turned their joy to dismay as they realize who mans those ships, concurrently turning the grimness of the Rohirrim and the men of Gondor to newly strengthened resolve, and the tide turned.

There is no need to show six hours of battle to describe the ensuing rout - jump-cuts suffice nicely. Jackson used them throughout the lengthy Battle of Helm's Deep, and there was no reason not to use it here. Instead, Jackson relied on the deux ex machina of the Dead to abruptly end what should have been an epic battle. Instead, Jackson focuses on Legolas and his Oliphaunt parkour, a childish and silly deviation that wastes way too much screen time. Use of the Dead in the battle obviates the valor of the Rohirrim and Gondorians, a central tenet to LOTR. Tolkien held the warrior mythos in high regard and infused it into his central warriors Aragorn, Eomer, Imrahil and even Theoden, who rises from dotage and dishonor to regain his manhood and die a hero. Using the Dead to sweep the foe from the field in mere minutes diminishes the struggle and triumph of these warriors. Theoden's sacrifice in particular is rendered moot ? had he just waited, "skulking in the hills," the deliverance of Gondor would have been affected anyway. Jackson either doesn't grasp the warrior mythos or chooses to ignore it in favor of cheap theatrical tricks, and that is unacceptable

Further, throughout the LOTR Tolkien minimizes the use of magic. This is not an accident, since he wasn't writing a wizard's story, but the story of commoners doing uncommon things. Gandalf, especially after the Balrog and his rebirth, is the second most powerful creature on Middle-Earth. In another version of the story a Gandalf-like character could have, perhaps, stormed the very tower of Barad-Dur and alone challenged Sauron. But Tolkien's Gandaf doesn't do this. Instead he acts as a catalyst, working from behind to motivate the resistance. It was never Tolkien's intent to have Gandalf conjure his way out of trouble, the story is about strength of heart and character and loyalty and love. Jackson didn't ? or couldn't ? portray this, so he trundles out the easy fix, and the Dead do all the work.

But Jackson's laziness goes beyond all of this. Jackson actually had the forces of Mordor inside the city walls. Wholly unnecessary, and frankly it was the cheap way out. Jackson wanted to portray the sense of hopelessness and despair the Gondorians faced in the siege, so he had the gates fall and the foe enter. This is entirely not in keeping with the tenor of the book, and further diminishes the character and valor of the Gondorians. Minas Tirith, the citadel of Gondor, had never before been breached ? no foe had passed its walls. Yet Jackson throws this away just so he can show the panic and terror of his version of Gondorians.

Jackson's Gondorians are a rude, mean people. There was zero subtlety in Jackson's Denethor, from his ragged robes to the disgusting way he ate. Jackson's intent was to demean the character, again an unnecessary change. Tolkien's Denethor was a lordly man, wise and powerful, a veritable king ? but in the dignity of Gondor, still merely a Steward. Denethor was honorable and strong, but his respect of strength was his flaw, and his undoing. It is not impossible to create a film character so wise yet so mistaken, it just takes work. Work Jackson was unwilling to put in.

The walls of Minas Tirith represent not only a physical but a psychological barrier as well. They are the limit to which evil can progress. They are the boundary where the reader can see that, though evil is strong and its forces clamor, the brave can withstand them. There is a place, no matter how beleaguered, where resistance is capable of halting them. The walls of Minas Tirith are no different than the loyalty of Sam Gamgee or the courage of Faramir. Jackson's decision to put the forces of Mordor inside those walls means he entirely misunderstood these themes ? or that he didn't care, and intentionally trampled them for the sake of putting his stamp on the story.



Similarly, the Frodo/Shelob scene was entirely mishandled. As in the Siege of Gondor, the forces of Good are beset by an Evil entirely too strong for them. Evil can't not triumph, it is so strong. But ? BUT! ? through courage and valor and self-sacrifice, Evil ? Shelob ? was thwarted. Not, this time, by some great warrior or mighty wizard, but by a common man, a gardener, unvaliant, terrified, but bound to do what he does merely out of love for his comrade. This theme is born from Tolkien's brief time in the trenches of the Somme in WWI, where he discovered a respect for the common Englishman that as an educated man pf England's upper caste he had never before held. Sam Gamgee is an amalgamation of those desperate, anonymous heroes who fought and died in WWI no less valiantly than the "upper crust" of England's gentry.

The story, as written by Tolkien, allows the reader time to grasp the fact that the greatest hero in LOTR isn't Aragorn, it isn't Gimli or Legolas or Gandalf or even Frodo ? it's Sam, the uneducated, untrained, unworthy bumpkin who simply refuses to give up, whose loyalty remains steadfast throughout all trials, and without whom the Quest of the Ring would never, ever have been accomplished. We come to understand this not simply because Sam bravely (and stupidly) challenges a creature more terrible than any he's ever seen or dreamt of in his worst nightmares, but through the tireless self-sacrifice and dogged perseverance Sam displays throughout the trek across Mordor.

It is that time to develop the character of Sam that Jackson tosses aside in his decision to cram Shelob and the entire stage across Mordor into RotK. Instead we're given more adventure in the form of Shelob, and adventure for the sake of adventure is exactly what Tolkien did NOT write. Jackson succumbed to the pressures of Hollywood and turned what should have been a time of enlightenment into a "rollicking good time."

 

[knapplc]

ok. Technicality here, but didn't he really create writings as backstories for his languages? :)

It's true he wrote the languages first, beginning as a schoolboy, but to say the stories were simply written to provide a backdrop for the languages is untrue. Tolkien was many things, a logophile among them, but first and foremost he was a storyteller. Many of his contemporaries among The Inklings were also logophiles, C.S. Lewis being the first to come to mind, but while this was a passion for Tolkien and his friends, writing was their life's work.

Tolkien had, from an early age, intended to create a new mythology for England, and began writing about Middle-Earth as a result. I'd have to look up the exact order in which he wrote his stories, but I know the LOTR was not the first. I believe he began with First Age stuff, that millenniums-long defeat of the Noldor at the hand of Morgoth. I know the Fall of Gondolin was among his first completed works, and to my mind it remains one of his best.

I think if the languages he created had been preeminent in his mind they would have been used far more than they were. Of course he couldn't have written a novel in Quenya and expected it to be read by anyone other than his intimates or scholars, but even had he included them more than he did I think many but the most devoted readers would have tired of them early on, and the stories as we know them wouldn't be nearly as popular.

It's probably safest to say that the languages were the seed from which the stories sprang, but they were more the underlying roots than the more visible branches. Does that make sense?

 

[MolGenBuckeye]

No. It is not better than Tolkien. JRR Tolkien lived and breathed this stuff like no other. He created actual languages for his writings. The guy just blows away anyone, anything. It's not even close.

Besides, if I had a dollar for every time someone told me, "You like Tolkien? You'll love this...." I'd have at least $14. At least.

And the sad thing is, none of them have ever come close. Not even close. Not Zimiamvia, not the Thomas Covenant series, not the Shannara series, not Dragonlance, none of it. It's not the same.

I appreciate the recommendation, and maybe I'll check it out for want of something to read, but.... well, you know. There's just one Tolkien.

Gotta second the recommendation for GRRM's books. I wouldn't go as far as saying it's as good as Tolkien, but it's a quality series. The part that does remind me of Tolkien is that while there are supernatural elements to it, it's much more character driven than most sword-and-sorcery type literature.

And I'll readily admit to reading waaaay too much Dragonlance back in the day. :)

 

[buckeyegrad]

For instance the bit about the dead's involvement in the battle of pellenor fields. It might come off as a little bit cheesy but it gave them a plot tool to "swing" the fight in an abrupt manner (much like Gandolf riding in at helms deep, or the destruction of the ring sinking Sauron's army at the black gate). The way that Tolkien wrote it works in a book very well in bookform, but to just have Aragorn, his kin and the sons of elrond showing up to the fight..it would them quite awhile to clear our all the orcs and what have you. How do you show that on screen?

I have to disagree with this point. Jackson lost a great cinematic moment that is provided by Tolkien. In the book there is the memorable moment when both armies are fighting on the Pelannor fields and they see the Corsairs' ships coming up the Anduin. Despair first falls upon the defenders of Gondor because they realize that with this additional aid they will not be able to withstand the armies of Mordor. However, to the great surprise of both armies, the ships unfurl the ancient banner of Gondor, which puts great fear into the hosts of Mordor and rallies the forces defending Minas Tirith. This would have been great cinema.

The only reason this would not have worked in the movie is because Jackson failed to show the true strength of Gondor. While the kingdom had certainly degraded over the centuries, it still had great strength and consisted of a lot more than just Minas Tirith as depicted in the movie--in the books, when Aragon arrives on the ships, it is more than just him, a few elves, Gimli, and the Rangers. Their are also gondorian armies from the south, which he had freed from the cosair's attacks.

This is my biggest complaint about the entire Battle of Pelannor in the movie. While the hosts of Mordor certainly were the tremendous strength depicted, they were not as overwhelming as the movie suggests. Even Sauron knew this, as he launched his attack on Minas Tirith prematurely once Aragorn confronted him directly via the Palentir by revealing that he was the lost decedent of Isildur and the rightful king of Gondor (and the lost kingdom of Arnor). IMO, Jackson made a huge error in degrading the forces of Gondor and consequently missed a lot of good cinematic tension and resolution

 

[buckeyegrad]

The Battle of the Pelennor Fields didn't need the Dead one bit. The story as written by Tolkien was perfect - the coastal people were freed from the necessity of defending their shores by Aragorn and the Dead, who fulfilled their oath by routing the Corsairs at Pelargir. They captured the ships and sailed upriver along the breeze from Valinor, sent to push back the Darkness of Sauron. As they arrived at the quay, the joy of the forces of Mordor are energized as the reinforcing ships they looked for arrived. That turned their joy to dismay as they realize who mans those ships, concurrently turning the grimness of the Rohirrim and the men of Gondor to newly strengthened resolve, and the tide turned.

There is no need to show six hours of battle to describe the ensuing rout - jump-cuts suffice nicely. Jackson used them throughout the lengthy Battle of Helm's Deep, and there was no reason not to use it here. Instead, Jackson relied on the deux ex machina of the Dead to abruptly end what should have been an epic battle. Instead, Jackson focuses on Legolas and his Oliphaunt parkour, a childish and silly deviation that wastes way too much screen time. Use of the Dead in the battle obviates the valor of the Rohirrim and Gondorians, a central tenet to LOTR. Tolkien held the warrior mythos in high regard and infused it into his central warriors Aragorn, Eomer, Imrahil and even Theoden, who rises from dotage and dishonor to regain his manhood and die a hero. Using the Dead to sweep the foe from the field in mere minutes diminishes the struggle and triumph of these warriors. Theoden's sacrifice in particular is rendered moot ? had he just waited, "skulking in the hills," the deliverance of Gondor would have been affected anyway. Jackson either doesn't grasp the warrior mythos or chooses to ignore it in favor of cheap theatrical tricks, and that is unacceptable

Further, throughout the LOTR Tolkien minimizes the use of magic. This is not an accident, since he wasn't writing a wizard's story, but the story of commoners doing uncommon things. Gandalf, especially after the Balrog and his rebirth, is the second most powerful creature on Middle-Earth. In another version of the story a Gandalf-like character could have, perhaps, stormed the very tower of Barad-Dur and alone challenged Sauron. But Tolkien's Gandaf doesn't do this. Instead he acts as a catalyst, working from behind to motivate the resistance. It was never Tolkien's intent to have Gandalf conjure his way out of trouble, the story is about strength of heart and character and loyalty and love. Jackson didn't ? or couldn't ? portray this, so he trundles out the easy fix, and the Dead do all the work.

But Jackson's laziness goes beyond all of this. Jackson actually had the forces of Mordor inside the city walls. Wholly unnecessary, and frankly it was the cheap way out. Jackson wanted to portray the sense of hopelessness and despair the Gondorians faced in the siege, so he had the gates fall and the foe enter. This is entirely not in keeping with the tenor of the book, and further diminishes the character and valor of the Gondorians. Minas Tirith, the citadel of Gondor, had never before been breached ? no foe had passed its walls. Yet Jackson throws this away just so he can show the panic and terror of his version of Gondorians.

Jackson's Gondorians are a rude, mean people. There was zero subtlety in Jackson's Denethor, from his ragged robes to the disgusting way he ate. Jackson's intent was to demean the character, again an unnecessary change. Tolkien's Denethor was a lordly man, wise and powerful, a veritable king ? but in the dignity of Gondor, still merely a Steward. Denethor was honorable and strong, but his respect of strength was his flaw, and his undoing. It is not impossible to create a film character so wise yet so mistaken, it just takes work. Work Jackson was unwilling to put in.

The walls of Minas Tirith represent not only a physical but a psychological barrier as well. They are the limit to which evil can progress. They are the boundary where the reader can see that, though evil is strong and its forces clamor, the brave can withstand them. There is a place, no matter how beleaguered, where resistance is capable of halting them. The walls of Minas Tirith are no different than the loyalty of Sam Gamgee or the courage of Faramir. Jackson's decision to put the forces of Mordor inside those walls means he entirely misunderstood these themes ? or that he didn't care, and intentionally trampled them for the sake of putting his stamp on the story.



Similarly, the Frodo/Shelob scene was entirely mishandled. As in the Siege of Gondor, the forces of Good are beset by an Evil entirely too strong for them. Evil can't not triumph, it is so strong. But ? BUT! ? through courage and valor and self-sacrifice, Evil ? Shelob ? was thwarted. Not, this time, by some great warrior or mighty wizard, but by a common man, a gardener, unvaliant, terrified, but bound to do what he does merely out of love for his comrade. This theme is born from Tolkien's brief time in the trenches of the Somme in WWI, where he discovered a respect for the common Englishman that as an educated man pf England's upper caste he had never before held. Sam Gamgee is an amalgamation of those desperate, anonymous heroes who fought and died in WWI no less valiantly than the "upper crust" of England's gentry.

The story, as written by Tolkien, allows the reader time to grasp the fact that the greatest hero in LOTR isn't Aragorn, it isn't Gimli or Legolas or Gandalf or even Frodo ? it's Sam, the uneducated, untrained, unworthy bumpkin who simply refuses to give up, whose loyalty remains steadfast throughout all trials, and without whom the Quest of the Ring would never, ever have been accomplished. We come to understand this not simply because Sam bravely (and stupidly) challenges a creature more terrible than any he's ever seen or dreamt of in his worst nightmares, but through the tireless self-sacrifice and dogged perseverance Sam displays throughout the trek across Mordor.

It is that time to develop the character of Sam that Jackson tosses aside in his decision to cram Shelob and the entire stage across Mordor into RotK. Instead we're given more adventure in the form of Shelob, and adventure for the sake of adventure is exactly what Tolkien did NOT write. Jackson succumbed to the pressures of Hollywood and turned what should have been a time of enlightenment into a "rollicking good time."

Brilliant critique. +1

 

[knapplc]

Gotta second the recommendation for GRRM's books. I wouldn't go as far as saying it's as good as Tolkien, but it's a quality series. The part that does remind me of Tolkien is that while there are supernatural elements to it, it's much more character driven than most sword-and-sorcery type literature.

And I'll readily admit to reading waaaay too much Dragonlance back in the day. :)

Then I'll check it out. I'm always looking for something to read. I have insomnia so I read nightly until I collapse into my book. You go through a lot of books that way. Anything fresh and decent is good.

 

[Diego-Bucks]

Then I'll check it out. I'm always looking for something to read. I have insomnia so I read nightly until I collapse into my book. You go through a lot of books that way. Anything fresh and decent is good.

FYI, they have started the HBO adaptation called 'Game of Thrones' which is Book 1 of the series. Its an okay adaptation, I enjoy it.

I call it as good as Tolkien for a number of reasons that I personally find appealing. The dire struggles, the political manipulations but primarily the fact that the characters are very mortal and you gain that perspective through the story telling. Game of Thrones is a great ride. But if you make it to A Storm of Swords prepare your tear ducts. They'll be working in overdrive.

I don't know that anyone will approach the history that authors like Tolkien or Herbert gave their sagas, emphasis on Tolkien. But GRRM has a rich tapestry of history that impacts much of what the Houses and characters react/act upon. They are wonderful books.

*Edit* I enjoy the mortality of these characters because it approaches real life more than most books I read. My humblest of opinions on Tolkien and my biggest gripe is that he made a story-telling mistake to have Gandalf come back to life. Gandalf ought to have stayed dead leaving the rest of the story without its guardian/warden. The subsequent salvation of mankind from Sauron would have been an even truer and more virtuous struggle that mortal men could have owned and not shared it with the immortal and powerful wizard.

 

[Muck]

If you're a reader and you don't mind the fantasy genre, LOTR is the best there is. If fantasy isn't your thing it may not be for you.

I first read the Hobbit when I was 7-8 & LoTR shortly thereafter.

I love Tolkien but let's at least be brutally honest...he did have some serious weaknesses as a modern author. Narrative ain't his strong suit.

...and the poetry...good lord the poetry.

And the sad thing is, none of them have ever come close. Not even close. Not Zimiamvia, not the Thomas Covenant series, not the Shannara series, not Dragonlance, none of it. It's not the same.

Terry Brooks, Steven R Donaldson & Weis/Hickman?! (Actually Donaldson is at least decent...the others not so much)

Not exactly setting the bar very high there.

The genre has had far stronger writers than you've given it credit for:

Robert E Howard, Ursula K Le Guin, Steven Erikson, Fritz Leiber, Tad Williams, Jack Vance, Neil Gaiman, Stephen King (yes that Stephen King)...

Didn't want to tackle the Silmarillion again.

I tried to read that once. Got about 1/3 of the way through. If I'm remembering correctly it reads like a history book. Not my cup of tea.

Helpful tip for those trying to read teh Silmarillion the first time....read it backwards (as in part by part not page by page lol).

Seriously.

 

[buckeyegrad]

The subsequent salvation of mankind from Sauron would have been an even truer and more virtuous struggle that mortal men could have owned and not shared it with the immortal and powerful wizard.

I don't think such a telling of the story would have been possible for Tolkien to write. As a staunch Catholic, he could not envision man (i.e. a fallen, created being) achieving salvation on his own; and I think he would have argued that to write a story in which man does achieve self-salvation would be less true and less virtuous.

Even beyond Gandalf as "servant of the Secret Fire", the unseen finger of Eru Iluvatar (i.e. God) is what ultimately brings salvation to the peoples of Middle Earth.

 

[MolGenBuckeye]

Robert E Howard, Ursula K Le Guin, Steven Erikson, Fritz Leiber, Tad Williams, Jack Vance, Neil Gaiman, Stephen King (yes that Stephen King)...

Other than King, I don't think I've read any of those authors. Can you give a couple books/series out of there that you'd recommend in particular?

 

[knapplc]

I first read the Hobbit when I was 7-8 & LoTR shortly thereafter.

I love Tolkien but let's at least be brutally honest...he did have some serious weaknesses as a modern author. Narrative ain't his strong suit.

...and the poetry...good lord the poetry.

Serious weaknesses? There's something to be said for appreciating the style of one author over another, but I think you're judging too harshly on Tolkien's abilities. You don't have the following Tolkien has with "serious weaknesses" evident in your writing.

Terry Brooks, Steven R Donaldson & Weis/Hickman?! (Actually Donaldson is at least decent...the others not so much)

Not exactly setting the bar very high there.

The genre has had far stronger writers than you've given it credit for:

Robert E Howard, Ursula K Le Guin, Steven Erikson, Fritz Leiber, Tad Williams, Jack Vance, Neil Gaiman, Stephen King (yes that Stephen King)...

A list off the top of my head, not intended to be all-inclusive. You're welcome to your preferences, but aside from Howard, I'm not that enthused about the folks you listed.

Helpful tip for those trying to read teh Silmarillion the first time....read it backwards (as in part by part not page by page lol).

Seriously.

There's nothing difficult about reading The Silmarillion as written. I can't imagine the benefit of reading it backwards - the story builds on itself; reading it backwards would be unnecessarily confusing, especially for a neophyte.

The only reason I didn't read it in my last Tolkien go-round was due to its depressing nature. The First Age, which The Silmarillion primarily deals with, is one long ass-kicking of the elves by Morgoth. That's a long time to devote to dark material and frankly, two months ago I wasn't in a place to read something like that. I know the story quite well; passing on it at the time didn't leave me in the dark.

 

[knapplc]

Other than King, I don't think I've read any of those authors. Can you give a couple books/series out of there that you'd recommend in particular?

Robert E. Howard is most famous for writing the original Conan novels. They're definitely worth the read.

Ursula K. Le Guin has written a lot of stuff, with the Earthsea novels probably her most famous.

Tad Williams wrote Tailchaser's Song, which is probably his best-received work. DO NOT waste your time reading the Otherworld series. It is extremely long, unnecessarily tedious and boring. Even for insomniacs this isn't worth the somnolent effects. Bleh.

I'm not familiar with Leiber, Vance or Gaiman. Stephen King should be familiar to anyone whose even a casual reader, of course.

 

[Muck]

Other than King, I don't think I've read any of those authors. Can you give a couple books/series out of there that you'd recommend in particular?

Robert E Howard - The recent [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Coming-Conan-Cimmerian-Original-Adventures/dp/0345461517/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1305829235&sr=8-1]Coming of Conan The Cimmerian[/ame] compilation. There are two follow up compilations of his Conan stories (The Bloody Crown of ... & The Conquering Sword of...). His Solomon Kane, Bran Mak Morn & Kull the Conquerer stories have been similarly collected & re-released recently...sadly Cormac Mac Art (my personal favorite) hasn't received similar treatment.

Le Guinn - Start with [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Wizard-Earthsea-Cycle-Book/dp/0553383043/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1305829822&sr=1-1]A Wizard of Earthsea[/ame]. There are four other books set in Earthsea.

Erikson is an archaeologist/anthropologist and his massive (10 books) Malazan Book of the Fallen series is nearing it's conclusion. The first one being [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Gardens-Moon-Malazan-Book-Fallen/dp/0765322889/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1305830192&sr=1-1]Gardens of The Moon[/ame]


Leiber is the creator of Fafrhd & the Grey Mouse the two most notorious rogues in Lankhmar. [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Lankhmar-Book-1-Swords-Deviltry/dp/1595820795/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1305829938&sr=1-1]Swords & Deviltry[/ame]


Tad Williams - His Memory, Sorrow & Thorn series is a must read. The first book is [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Dragonbone-Chair-Memory-Sorrow-Thorn/dp/0756402697/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1305830063&sr=8-5]The Dragonbone Chair[/ame]


Jack Vance is best known for his [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Tales-Dying-Earth-Jack-Vance/dp/0312874561/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1305830412&sr=1-1]Dying Earth[/ame] books.

Neil Gaiman dabbles in a bunch of different media types (comic books, screen plays, novels etc). If you've seen Stardust or Mirrormask, they were both created by him. If you have to start somewhere with him it's hard to go wrong with [ame=http://www.amazon.com/American-Gods-Novel-Neil-Gaiman/dp/0060558121/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1305830927&sr=1-1]American Gods[/ame], it's modern/urban fantasy but it is fantastic.

FWIW - for those who have mentioned being gamers (either now or when they were younger). Vance & Leiber were the two biggest early influences for Gary when he was first working out what would become D&D (hint: that's why the magic system is referred to as 'vancian').