Well ... I decided to dive into this book today, and in the introduction (written by Alexander Pope, who translated this version of the Illiad back in the early 1700s) I found what I think a pearl of wisdom.
It has always amazed me how most people either love or hate SRD's work. I haven't run into many people who've read it and said, "eh - it's okay." It's like an inverted bell curve - lots of fans and anti-fans, and fewer people in the middle.
Anyway, here is an exerpt from Alexander Pope's introduction to his English translation of the Illiad that I think may help explain this:
Could this be why The Chronicles are always compared to The Lord of the Rings? (aside from the obvious marketting reasons, that is) Tolkien wasn't "methodical," but his work did spawn many books that were so. And although The Chronicles share some elements of Tolkien, everything else is so different that I have to laugh every time the comparison comes up. But where WE all see the genius of SRD's creation, others fall into the cow path of comparing it to the more familiar fantasy that CAN be compared more closely to Tolkien.And, perhaps, the reason why common critics are inclined to prefer a judicious and methodical genius to a great and fruitful one, is, because they find it easier for themselves to pursue their observations through a uniform and bounded walk of art, than to comprehend the vast and various extend of nature."
Or am I still not caught up on my sleep from a very hectic start to the summer?
A bit later in the introduction ...
So I say we stop comparing SRD to Tolkien, and look back a few extra millenia. Perhaps we can change the UK cover of Runes to read, "Comparable to Homer at his best."It is to the strength of this amazing invention we are to attribute that unequalled fire and rapture which is so forcible in Homer, that no man of a true poetical spirit is master of himself while he reads him. What he writes is of the most animated nature imaginable; every thing moves, every thing lives, and is put in action.
