LOTR, Hobbit geek-fest

[Diego-Bucks]

Robert E Howard - The recent Coming of Conan The Cimmerian 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 A Wizard of Earthsea. 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 Gardens of The Moon


Leiber is the creator of Fafrhd & the Grey Mouse the two most notorious rogues in Lankhmar. Swords & Deviltry


Tad Williams - His Memory, Sorrow & Thorn series is a must read. The first book is The Dragonbone Chair


Jack Vance is best known for his Dying Earth 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 American Gods, 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').

Tsk tsk. No mention of my beloved George R.R. Martin. This list lacks I say!

 

[Diego-Bucks]

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.

I didn't mean salvation in any sort of philosophical sense. More literal, like Russia stemming the tide against the Barbossa invasion in '41. I think that without Gandalf, the plot would have been much more tense and the struggle much more difficult and yet rewarding as well. I'm just saying, he should have stayed dead. Middle Earth doesn't need zombie wizards.

 

[Muck]

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.

And I'm sure that you're blinded by righteous indignation of the fanatical fan.
:p

The professor primarily was a world creator, trying to emulate the mythic tellings of the 1k y/o manuscripts with which he was most familiar. His writing of tales set in that world are almost incidental to his true passion. His work has withstood the test of time based on the depth of his world building more than the strength of his prose. In short passages his writing can be beautiful & even powerful but within the modern framework of the narrative that has has come to be known as the novel Tolkien's work does have weaknesses. He often meanders & loses focus, his characters (as written) tend to be a bit without depth and he is not strong when it comes to plot.


That doesn't mean his work is without value; far be it, his work is one of the cornerstones of modern fantasy literature and can be a very engaging read...merely that it is not perfect.

Popularity =/= quality...

...unless you're going to argue that Britney Spears is our greatest modern vocalist.

 

[Muck]

Tsk tsk. No mention of my beloved George R.R. Martin. This list lacks I say!

When Martin gets off his rear, quits whining & actually actually publishes the next damn book I'll give him a nod. Until then ... feck 'em.

Hey I didn't mention some of my personal favorites either (Glen Cook, Charles de Lint, China Mieville...)

 

[knapplc]

If you're judging Tolkien's work vs. perfection, certainly it will fail. But not one author you've discussed in this thread is his better.

 

[Muck]

If you're judging Tolkien's work vs. perfection, certainly it will fail. But not one author you've discussed in this thread is his better.

Several writers I mentioned were demonstrably better.

Howard, Gaiman & le Guinn at her best.

T.H. White was a better writer, even though I like LoTR far better than any of his work.

Part of the problem with objectively viewing Tolkien is that it's almost possible for people to divorce his actual writing from the massive amount of baggage that goes along with it. When people think of Smaug how much of their memory revolves around Richard Boone's lovely voice portrayal from the TV movie or the gorgeous art work of the Hildebrand brothers?

 

[knapplc]

Several writers I mentioned were demonstrably better.

Howard, Gaiman & le Guinn at her best.

T.H. White was a better writer, even though I like LoTR far better than any of his work.

So, you have an opinion too. That's nice. :)

 

[Diego-Bucks]

When Martin gets off his rear, quits whining & actually actually publishes the next damn book I'll give him a nod. Until then ... feck 'em.

Hey I didn't mention some of my personal favorites either (Glen Cook, Charles de Lint, China Mieville...)

Haha. I think July 12th is the day for A Dance with Dragons. I'm looking forward to it. I gotta do a re-read of the first 4 novels.

 

[AKAK]

I didn't mean salvation in any sort of philosophical sense. More literal, like Russia stemming the tide against the Barbossa invasion in '41. I think that without Gandalf, the plot would have been much more tense and the struggle much more difficult and yet rewarding as well. I'm just saying, he should have stayed dead. Middle Earth doesn't need zombie wizards.

I love me an ironic typo.

And Zombie Barbossa...

 

[Diego-Bucks]

If you're judging Tolkien's work vs. perfection, certainly it will fail. But not one author you've discussed in this thread is his better.

Personally, I do think there are better or just as good of authors. I think that Muck makes a great point on the prose and character development in LOTR. I think many novelists do a better job on telling a story and developing characters. I will say that the combination of depth, history, setting, overall plot makes LOTR the standard-bearer on fantasy novels. But I don't hold it up on an impossible pedestal.

 

[Diego-Bucks]

I love me an ironic typo.

And Zombie Barbossa...

I have been bested. Barbarossa.

 

[knapplc]

Personally, I do think there are better or just as good of authors. I think that Muck makes a great point on the prose and character development in LOTR. I think many novelists do a better job on telling a story and developing characters. I will say that the combination of depth, history, setting, overall plot makes LOTR the standard-bearer on fantasy novels. But I don't hold it up on an impossible pedestal.

We're talking opinions here. You can't talk me into liking the wine you like, or the music you like or the painter you like. I like what I like, you like what you like, and that's fine. It is an opinion that there are better authors out there - writing is an art, and while you can attempt to break it down into various quantifiables, in the end it's all opinion.

Didn't you people watch Dead Poets Society?

 

[buckeyegrad]

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.

Knapplc, I am a Tolkien apologist, but what Much says is true, as a modern author his work does not stand-up well. Just look at how LOTR was received by the critics of the 20th century--not well. Likewise, there is no wide movement among literary critics and English professors to add Tolkien to the canon of western literature.

In my opinion, the key to understanding Tolkien's genius, which you recognize, is that he shouldn't be judged as a modern author. He certainly didn't aspire to such as he thought modern literature was for the most part garbage. If we are to correctly judge his work, it must be seen outside of the time when he wrote it. He aspired to write a pre-modern mythology that should be judged among works such as Beowulf, the Kalevala, the Icelandic Eddur, and other such northern European classics.

 

[knapplc]

I'm not going to disagree with that, I'm simply saying that "the establishment" can take a flying leap. Good is good, whether it fits certain norms or expectations or whether it flies in the face of convention. This has nothing to do with being a Tolkien Fanboy and everything to do with the concept of "like what you like."

I can't tell you why I like LOTR, or The Count of Monte Christo, or Watership Down, or Gates of Fire. I just do. It's an academic exercise to dissect the work of an author to attempt to discover just what it is that makes their work "good." I find no merit in that exercise.

 

[Diego-Bucks]

I'm not going to disagree with that, I'm simply saying that "the establishment" can take a flying leap. Good is good, whether it fits certain norms or expectations or whether it flies in the face of convention. This has nothing to do with being a Tolkien Fanboy and everything to do with the concept of "like what you like."

I can't tell you why I like LOTR, or The Count of Monte Christo, or Watership Down, or Gates of Fire. I just do. It's an academic exercise to dissect the work of an author to attempt to discover just what it is that makes their work "good." I find no merit in that exercise.

Is this the same argument of "like what you like" that says the Oscars for Best Picture ought to also be tied to the film that grosses the most in theaters? I get that if something is entertaining then it doesn't matter too much the how or why its entertaining. But if popularity contests are all that's needed then Michael Bay films would always win Oscars since he makes things entertaining and millions of folks eat it up. And Transformers 2 is not a classic.

What I'm saying is that I think its important to find out what makes a good novel good and not just entertaining. Critics have their place. Tolkien's work is great and I can't see it being bested as a novel that brings the history and depth to the story. There are other fantasy novels that are also great, for different reasons. Dissecting them can allow me to understand where these authors excelled and find similar great works.