The Greatest Book Ever Written (1 Viewer)

[kami]

Isn't that considered his greatest work? Though I have to agree, a lot of it changes what we think we know about LotR to the point where it seems that one is simply attached to the other so that people would read it.

But dammit, I wish I could write as well as some of these guys. I have all these ideas, plot and characters runing through my head, but I just can't make them work on paper.

And you've hit the nail on the head - people love the Silmarillion because of fan loyalty to LOTR but if they had read the Silmarillion first they would likely not hold the same view.

And if you want to write Argonaur, then start writing and keep practising because afterall as a friend once said to me "it is only from crap that the garden may grow". Write crap, then start over and keep going till you are so close you can *breathe* it. And then you're an author.

 

[sarevok]

You are citing historical importance - yes Tolkien may have been the architect of the epic fantasy subgenre, but other writers have built on his ideas since then and executed them more effectively. It would be like saying that Christie's work is miles beyond say Snow Falling On Cedars when it isn't exactly true.

Yes, I realise that, I was just making the point that assessing who is the 'better' author should take into account their originality and influence, and in this case there is obviously no contest between Tolkien and Jordan. The Christie analogy is useless, the genre of crime fiction was already well-established before her time, whilst the same cannot be said of Tolkien and epic fantasy.

I felt that LotR lacked this, there was little difference between people other than lines on a map that defined where they lived.

I disagree, Tolkien has the most impressive world-building skills of any fantasy writer, having spent years inventing languages for his created races and developing Middle Earth's history. I think a lot of modern fantasy writers have surpassed Tolkien in making their fantasy realms more accessible to the reader, but so far none have bettered the sheer depth of creation in Tolkien's middle earth.

And to any who seek to glorify Tolkien, mayhap you should read the Silmarillion, it will be an eye opener.

Why? The Silmarillion is by far his best work.

 

[xeuyrawp]

The Christie analogy is useless, the genre of crime fiction was already well-established before her time, whilst the same cannot be said of Tolkien and epic fantasy.

Although this seems like a silly debate, the bolded statement is plain false.

I could name 10 epic fantasies (the convention, mode, genre, whatever you want to call it) that I've just read in now extinct languages

 

[nwatts]

I'd nominate 'Middlesex' by Jeffrey Eugenides as "greatest book ever written", maybe closely followed by The Bible.

 

[kami]

Yes, I realise that, I was just making the point that assessing who is the 'better' author should take into account their originality and influence, and in this case there is obviously no contest between Tolkien and Jordan. The Christie analogy is useless, the genre of crime fiction was already well-established before her time, whilst the same cannot be said of Tolkien and epic fantasy.

And again you are arguing the wrong point - the quality of a book has nothing to do with how influential it is. As for your view of the analogy - I could cite The Odyssey, but you might as well refer to Pwaryuex's post, 'nuff said.

I disagree, Tolkien has the most impressive world-building skills of any fantasy writer, having spent years inventing languages for his created races and developing Middle Earth's history. I think a lot of modern fantasy writers have surpassed Tolkien in making their fantasy realms more accessible to the reader, but so far none have bettered the sheer depth of creation in Tolkien's middle earth.

What exactly do you mean by "sheer depth of creation"? Do you mean Tolkien's descriptions? The range of cultures? Because there are a range of more modern authors that do extraordinarily well on both fronts - Steven Erikson is one example.

Why? The Silmarillion is by far his best work.

It is his least accessible work, and it also shows the lack of originality in Middle Earth as Tolkien borrowed from his predeccesors. Eru anyone?

 

[sarevok]

I could name 10 epic fantasies (the convention, mode, genre, whatever you want to call it) that I've just read in now extinct languages

There are parallels between Tolkien's work, and say, Gilgamesh or the llliad, but I would certainly not include the latter in the genre of epic fantasy (not that I want to get into a discussion of the semantics concerning the term). Tolkien's work was quite distinct from anything attempted before, and it was his work that must be regarded as the most prominent progenitor of 'epic fantasy' such as Martin, Hobb, Williams, Goodkind, Jordan etc.

Sure LotR is accepted as his most-read work, even if The Silmarillion is considered his best, but wouldn't it have paid off a bit more to include some of that history in LotR?

I don't know what you mean; Tolkien included much history of Middle Earth in the Lord of the Rings. One of the reasons why the plot of LotR is so thin is because there is a greater focus on world-building, and the discussion of Middle Earth's history, than there is on plotting.

 

[sarevok]

And again you are arguing the wrong point - the quality of a book has nothing to do with how influential it is.

In the context of discussing who is the 'better author' out of Jordan and Tolkien, the influence each of them have had is certainly relevant. Influence is not always indicative of quality, that is true; but if we are discussing the merits of novels within the fantasy genre, of which Tolkien more than any other was the architect, then implicity his influence must have been of some value. Likewise, if you are deriding Tolkien's influence as not being a good thing, then you are deriding Jordan as well, given how, unarguably, he rigidly adheres to the conventions laid down by Tolkien.

What exactly do you mean by "sheer depth of creation"? Do you mean Tolkien's descriptions? The range of cultures?

Linguistics, culture and history. Steven Erikson? Surely you jest. The Malazan books are only matched in sheer awfulness by Goodkind's rubbish. The only serious opposition to Tolkein in this regard is Mieville, no others.

 

[xeuyrawp]

There are parallels between Tolkien's work, and say, Gilgamesh or the llliad, but I would certainly not include the latter in the genre of epic fantasy (not that I want to get into a discussion of the semantics concerning the term). Tolkien's work was quite distinct from anything attempted before, and it was his work that must be regarded as the most prominent progenitor of 'epic fantasy' such as Martin, Hobb, Williams, Goodkind, Jordan etc.

The whole time I watched and then read (yes, I never read it before the movie came out), I was thinking of Jason and his Argonauts...

There are a few other Greek myths that Tolkien's work resembles, and a couple of Mesopotanian and Babylonian myths that really fit into my concept of an epic fantasy.

In any case, if you want to dish out the old 'he was the first', I can come up with a 'he was an imitator', which is why 'he was the first' is never a good road to go down. You could talk about his stylistic elements like his description, you could talk about his characters, you could talk about his general plot discourse; but I could talk about similar elements, I could talk about how his characters are a rip of a myriad of myths, about how his plot is really a carbon copy of an already established mode.

That is my reasoning why it's never a good idea to objectify art (especially literature) as 'the biggest or best' social impact, piece of work, or even as an innovation in itself.

I think a lot could be said about your favourite book, but objectifying it is really pointless and will (especially in such an environment as our current one) lead to over pretentious comments and then flaming.

 

[sarevok]

In any case, if you want to dish out the old 'he was the first', I can come up with a 'he was an imitator', which is why 'he was the first' is never a good road to go down.

I disagree in this case. Tolkien was indeed the first writer of 'epic fantasy', and if you want to include ancient myths and legends in that genre as well, then he was at least the progenitor of the modern brood of epic fantasy. Tolkien to some extent did borrow from myths and legends in the construction of his stories. But he also created original elements which were to become conventions of modern-day epic fantasies: a complete fantasy world with make-believe histories, legends and languages; that world being a medieval, agrarian society; the prominence of a functional magic system; there being an all-powerful dark lord, who is antagonist to the hero; the hero usually being one of unlikely social standing; and so forth. Such unique elements mark out Tolkien as significantly distinct from the myths and legends you cite. There is a reason why epic fantasy authors such as Hobb, Martin, Jordan etc. cite Tolkien as their main influence.

 

[sarevok]

But when you write fantasy, you don't have that much of a background to draw from. Sure, you've got Greek, Roman, Norse and Eastern mythology to run with, but that's it really.

This statement is completely false. Martin has largely ignored mythology and draw inspiration from sources such as the English War of the Roses, as did Zelazny many years before. What resemblance do Mieville and Moorcock's steam-punk worlds have to ancient mythology? Not much...

Other villains like WoT's Ba'alzamon/Shai'itan invade the dreams of the heroes, trying to gain a psychological edge on them; his disciples, the Forsaken, all maneuvre for favour with him while still serving, so it's like fighting fourteen bad guys at once, not just on.

Tolkien already invented the dark-lord-invading-dreams device, so in that respect Jordan is still copying him. Jordan's Tel-aye-ran-ree-hold or whatever the hell it is was already done in Zelazny's Chronicles of Amber and other preceding works. Jordan's Forsaken are obviously the same plot device as Tolkien's Nazgul.

Sorry, but Jordan is simply not a good enough author to even be compared to Tolkien in terms of quality. Really, Jordan's books are the fantasy equivalent of fast food; he is definitely targeting a less cerebral audience than Tolkien as he has merely 'dumbed down' Tolkien's conventions for the masses, and whilst his books are fun to read, they are in no way great literature.

 

[alissa_xoxo]

To Kill a Mockingbird - Harper Lee

Cliche, yes. But it is one of the only books i've read that has been truly memorable.

I plan to read alot more after the HSC

 

[keladry]

i reckon someone's ripped off something from someone in fantasy. mainly coz they tend to draw from a common pool of mythology or legend for some kind of inspiration. some authors have admitted to drawing elements from many sources - and one of the more mentioned ones in fantasy is tolkien. as a writer myself, i can see exactly where i've copied elements from books i've read and things i've been thru.

as philip pullman says: read like a butterfly, write like a bee.

 

[MasterP]

 

[Happybunny1]

Any book by Chuck Palunik eg. "Fight Club"

 

[keladry]

just reading some of the earlier stuff again:

how exactly is jordan dumbing down the genre? he's so complex and intriguing (if a bit long-winded - but then so was tolkien) that it takes a bit for me to see how everything fits... but that's just me.

is it even possible to "dumb down" a genre?

 

[ameh]

anything by C.S. Lewis

 

[kami]

sarevok, the flaw in your argument is that you seem to equate being older or more borrowed from as a better text, and fail to acknowledge that any writer's text may exceed one that it may have drawn inspiration from - and this simply isn't true. Tolkien may have fashioned a great text but he has been rivalled and exceeded several times such as in Robin Hobb and her intensely personal characterisations. If we were to follow your logic, we would say that Angela Carter's literary skills pale before the medieval and likely illiterate composers of say Cinderella in its oral form. And I would disagree with that as something more has been added to the tale - it has expanded and changed and so have the top writers of fantasy. I don't believe Jordan is the best, in fact as he goes on he tends to become somewhat generic and even starts borrowing from his own conventions but I certainly can see his plots and characters exceed what Tolkien depicted.
So I suppose what I'm trying to say to you is - older doesn't mean better, and things can improve through re-invention.

 

[sarevok]

sarevok, the flaw in your argument is that you seem to equate being older or more borrowed from as a better text, and fail to acknowledge that any writer's text may exceed one that it may have drawn inspiration from - and this simply isn't true.

The point of the discussion was who is the better author out of Jordan and Tolkien - that was the point to which I responded. Now, logically, if one author has invented many conventions which another is utilising, then that author's originality, and the influence that author had over the other, should be taken into account. I do not see how any reasonable person could argue otherwise.

If we were to follow your logic, we would say that Angela Carter's literary skills pale before the medieval and likely illiterate composers of say Cinderella in its oral form.

Please stop with the pointless analogies, because that has nothing to do with the logic applied in this situation. Cinderella in no way influenced Angela Carter as much as Tolkien did Jordan. Jordan's story is entirely built on the model formed by Tolkien.

how exactly is jordan dumbing down the genre? he's so complex and intriguing (if a bit long-winded - but then so was tolkien) that it takes a bit for me to see how everything fits... but that's just me.

is it even possible to "dumb down" a genre?

Of course it is, by utilising the conventions of the genre in a simpler and less complex manner. There can be no comparison between the breadth and scope of Tolkien's Middle Earth and Jordan's more accessible, but far less detailed world. Comparing Tolkien and Jordan in this regard is like comparing Mieville with Goodkind.

 

[Riewe]

i guess if you put the time and effort into reading nearly all of tolkien's ME works (LOTR, UT, The Hobbit, Sil, and HOME 1-12), then you gain a greater perspective on the world that Tolkien created, and how dense and creative it all is. The number of geneaologies, characters, places, cultures that he created and fleshed upon is quite staggering

But that is not to say that later authors have achieved success in the fantasy. Some worlds seem to be quite good. But most of the time, they seem to be too fantastical for their own good, while ME seemed bounded in some sort of earthly reality, which makes relating to it easier than other worlds.

 

[keladry]

Please stop with the pointless analogies, because that has nothing to do with the logic applied in this situation. Cinderella in no way influenced Angela Carter as much as Tolkien did Jordan. Jordan's story is entirely built on the model formed by Tolkien.
...
Of course it is, by utilising the conventions of the genre in a simpler and less complex manner. There can be no comparison between the breadth and scope of Tolkien's Middle Earth and Jordan's more accessible, but far less detailed world. Comparing Tolkien and Jordan in this regard is like comparing Mieville with Goodkind.

ok - if u didn't know, angela carter has actually done a lot of work on recreating old folk and fairy tales; hence the cinderella reference. i read a bit of her "feminist" fairy tales - pretty good stuff, and i've also read the older fairy tales that are annotated by literary experts. imo, drawing directly from cinderella is more than just influencing, but then carter wasn't advertising an "original" piece.

to me, there is nothing wrong with "dumbing down" if it makes it more accessible to the general public. making things less complex isn't such a bad thing, as it serves as an introduction into the genre, or even, heaven forbid, as a good story. fantasy isnt just world building - hasn't some been based in the real world, or alternate universes? its also the story, the characters, the interaction - all the things that make books worth reading. world-building is simply another aspect of fantasy, and tolkien was one of the first to utilise it to such a degree. not everyone has the talent of the master, but that doesn't mean they aren't worth reading. "dumbing down" is may have gotten people to read tolkien in the end - and to me, that isn't such a bad thing.