stephen donaldson vs tolkien

[amanibhavam]

yes, the Bilbo's party is nice and funny, but the Narn-i-Hín-Húrin is one of the most depressing stories ever written

what a movie it would make

[Findail The Appointed]

Speaking of the Silmarillion, that brings up a point. The Sil. is by far my favorite of Tolkien's work, along with some of the stories in the Unfinished tales / history of Middle Earth, etc...This is the element missing from TCTC for me. Those legends of ancient middle earth, Illuvatar, Morgoth, Turin - all weave such a miraculous history. Those kinds of things are only briefly touched on in TCTC.

Keeping fingers crossed for eventual prequels....

[arwenavery]

i think wed be waiting a long time for a prequel half as good as the sil. as it was said before ( im not sure by who or on what link) tolkien created the language , the characetrs , the world , and then the story ..the sil was written and thought of pre-LOTR , therefor a steady and interesting basis for his subsequent work..donaldson created the story and characters then the land and tnen the history..a prequel , like many , could be a romantic rose tinted version , were berek was always a saviour..unlike beren who killed his friends..etc..and still turned out to be an allright guy!!

[Findail The Appointed]

Well, I guess this answers the question of a prequel.
Here's a quote from an interview I ran across last night.


So you would never consider writing the prequel to Mordant's Need? The story of Joyse becoming King?

No. And we can say the same thing for Covenant. I would absolutely under no circumstances ever consider writing one, because that is the way my brain works. I'm interested in a kind of hierarchy, where you move this point forward to this point and what have you learned? I don't want to go back to a previous point and figure out what they learned to get to the starting point in the first place. I already talked about that: I didn't do it in detail but I did already tell you the story. Why am I going to do it again? Was I lying last time? Was the truth something else? Or, am I coasting now and just doing it because it's easy? That's not going to happen.


That's from: www-theory.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~aaa/SD.html

Okay, I'm gonna go pout in a corner now...

[aliantha]

There, there, Findail. <pats him on the shoulder>

Thanks for the link, anyway.

[Skyweir]

I love it .. SRD is so damnably determined .. once he's set his course there's no changing him!!!

[Zahir]

Hmmmm. I'm a relative newcommer here and was exploring the board, then came across this thread.

What occurs to me in comparing Tolkien & Donaldson is the difference in their creative process.

At heart (at least from what I've read) Tolkien pretty explicitly tried to create a world that would be a retelling of the kinds of stories he loved--the myths and lores of old. In <i>The Silmarillion</i> the central character is pretty much the elven race as a whole, just as Middle Earth itself is the central character in <i>LOTR</i>. A big motivation for all this appears to be a kind of nostalgia. Certainly Tolkien seemed deeply uncomfortable in the modern world, and longed for a past that I for one doubt ever existed.

Donaldson, on the other hand, seems to look forward, and not in terms of worlds or races but individuals. His books come across (to me, anyway) as attempts to exorcise personal demons through understanding. Both <i>Chronicles</i> focus on vivid, unique and flawed characters who explore a world not nearly so well developed as Middle Earth (at least in terms of details). Certainly we end up with far more knowledge about the history and culture of Gondor than we ever know about the Land. Yet I defy anyone to argue Aragorn is as realized a character as Hile Troy, or that Gandalf feels anywhere as real as Mhoram.

So to me these writers have a different focus, and happen to have drawn upon much of the same mythic elements in crafting their stories.

[[Syl]]

And it's important to note that neither sat down to write 'one of those wildly popular fantasy novels that will fly off the shelves and make me lots of money.'

It's not fantasy for the sake of fantasy (some of which I enjoy, but I also like to eat fast food).

This kind of writing takes more than a few likable characters, a couple of swords, and a big bad evil thing to kill.

I do, however, wish there were more Donaldson imitators than Tolkien imitators. Any DM can imitate what Tolkien did. I don't think a Land or its inhabitants can be created with a formula.

[Loredoctor]

I love TCTC. I do not like TLOTR. I think Tolkein is hugely overrated. People keep telling me that he is that father of fantasy - that's not true. You only have to look at the works of William Morris. While Donaldson does borrow heavily from Tolkein, at least he has interesting characters. I found TLOTR quite boring.

[[Syl]]

There's no arguing that Tolkien isn't dry... worth it tho. Like Hemingway.

[[Syl]]

Some people would argue that Donaldson is dry, though I find his writing too textured and complex to really be called dry. It's just not full of the typical fantasy "fun" stuff like dragons, evil wizards, and all.

[Bannor]

Ah, to each his own. Both are quite creative, and both wrote tremendous fantasies. To say one is better than the other is an opinion, and like all opinions, subject to the likes and dislikes of the one who has the opinion. Both borrowed from others (but show me a song that is completely original these days). Tolkien created several "usuable" languages. Donaldson had amazing characters. One could go on and on. Fortunately, I won't...

[Lord Mhoram]

Thank God!

Depends on what you measure when you're comparing like this, especially two different writers like Donaldson and Tolkien. Like most have said, Donaldson's strong points are his characters. Tolkien, on the other hand, is better w/history, languages, etc. However, both, imo, do pretty well w/the other's major attributes. Example: Tolkien has superb characters, and Donaldson neatly sums up the Land's history piece by piece, though Donaldson isnt as long winded as Tolkein. Lets face it, LOTR is an over-written epic, though Tolkien did a good job w/it.

[Ryzel]

yes, the Bilbo's party is nice and funny, but the Narn-i-Hín-Húrin is one of the most depressing stories ever written

what a movie it would make

Now, I am not an expert on these matters, but if what I think is right the story as it appears from the source has already been made into an opera.

The explanation being like this: Tolkien took most of the story of the Narn i hin Hurin (The story of the children of Hurin) from various germanic legends. The only one of which I am familiar with is from the elder Eddas, you can check it yourself if you like. However I have always believed that the Niebelungenlied, which has been made into an opera by Wagner or something I think. (The one with the ride of the valkyries)

Now the story in the opera is probably quite far from the Tolkien version, but it is supposed to be based on the same story originally. The story in the elder Eddas is quite close to the Tolkien version, at least in the dragon slaying parts.

[Zahir]

Well, there are elements from the Elder Eddas in both Wagner's <i>Ring</i> as well as Tolkien's <i>Rings</i> (just as LOTR has some stuff pretty clearly echoing the operas). But you can also look at plenty of other source materials, including the Bible. Same for the <i>Chronicles</i>. What's really interesting is how the different authors used these elements.

Wagner had his ring a cursed object whose essence had to be returned to sacred protection by magical beings. It was the actions of others who made the Rhinegold--in essence a mystery but hardly evil--a source of destruction. Only with an apocalypse is nature restored and the Rhinegold returned to its proper place.

Tolkien's ring is evil from the get-go. Destroying it is a logistical problem, but really that single thing is the only act needed to prevent something very like an apocalypse. Once the ring gets tossed into Mount Doom, pretty much all that's really wrong with the world rights itself.

Donaldson, on the other hand, has a ring that embodies a paradox that seems ingrained in the very bones of reality. What's needed is to find a way to solve that paradox. The ring isn't destroyed, its used--and much of the struggle is to learn exactly how to do just that.

I'd personally recommend <i><b>Ring of Power</b></i> by Dr. Jean Shinoda Bolen as a marvelous work about Wagner's operas and their meaning from a Jungian p.o.v.

[Skyweir]

I absolutely agree with Bannor!! very well said I thought ..

its a matter of personal taste/choice. Both authors in my opinion are brilliant .. as Bannor so eloquently stated .. there isnt very much in this world that is entirely original .. and none of these authors would claim not to have been influenced by those before them ..

Tolkien readily admits to having been influenced by other mythologies .. and what both he and Donaldson share in common is that they both wrote fantasies at times when fantasies were frowned upon .. not really taken seriously ..

Tolkien produced LotR's .. and in so doing realised a desire of creating a unique mythology in the place of an english history that lacked one ..

When SRD wrote his fantasy series .. he faced similar criticism for embarking a career in this area .. SRD wrote for different reasons .. and brought to bare his own unique fantasy ..

Both are brilliant ..

I love LotR's .. and could never call it 'dry' .. nor long winded .. or over-rated .. I am of the opinion that it is brilliant!! And its length is perfect imo. .. when I reached the end of tRotK .. I wanted more!!! much more!!

[Hearthcoal]

...Tolkien's works and The Chronicles, is the "back story."

One could simply read The Hobbit and LOTR and leave it at that. But if the reader delves deeper into Tolkien and reads The Silmarillion or some of his other writings, a larger picture emerges, of which LOTR is the most realized piece, but only a piece. The scale of what Tolkien was writing is immense.

That, I believe, is the missing element in The Chronicles. The reader knows so little of the back story (as evidenced by the nature of our questions here at KW).

This is not to say that Tolkien answers every question. In fact, the back story gives rise to many more questions, but it also provides a framework. With Tolkien, one can see over the horizon, so to speak.

But with Donaldson, the reader is limited to what is recorded in The Chronicles. The reader cannot see if or how The Chronicles fit into some larger cosmology. So in that sense The Chronicles, for all their breadth and scope, feel smaller in comparison (IMHO).

- Hearthcoal

[[Syl]]

macro vs micro.

personally, i enjoyed The Silmarillion more than I did LOTR.

[[Syl]]

man, can you imagine a movie made off of The Silmarillion? It'd be like time lapse CGI with hundreds of scenes like the opening of The Fellowship. Doubt it would ever happen, but it'd be cool. Would not want to be in charge of the first 20 minutes or so of the score, though.

[Hearthcoal]

... some points that Zahir raised in an earlier post.

In a sense Tolkien was trying to create a world that would contain the same elements that he loved in myth and lore. But this is not to say that he simply wanted to retell his favorite stories.

Tolkien was also struggling with the many rapid changes going on around him. He was born in South Africa in the 19th Century (1892), fought in the trenches of WW1, lived and wrote through the Depression Era (The Hobbit was published in 1937) and the air raids of WW2, finally publishing LOTR in 1954-55 (though he had begun working on it a good ten years earlier). When he passed away in August of 1973, the Cold War was on, and the USA was embroiled in the Vietnam Conflict.

Middle-earth may represent an ideal, pre-modern world born of Tolkien's longing for what the world might have been like without a WW1, a global depression, a WW2 and so forth. Given his experiences, it is easy to see why he was uncomfortable with so much that we take for granted (automobiles, telephones, technology - he didn't live to see PC's nor the internet).

Behind everything that Tolkien wrote, was a greater motivation than just telling a good story or reminding readers of what might have been. Tolkien, along with C.S. Lewis, and several of their contemporaries, was a devout Christian, a Roman Catholic. It was Tolkien's belief (and Lewis' too) that the act of "sub-creation" best revealed the image of God within man.

If you've the inclination read The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien for insight into how he thought and why he wrote. (Tolkien was a prolific letter writer!)

Unfortunately, we do not have a comparable volume of letters from S. R. Donaldson. What we know about SRD's life and writing motivations, come primarily from three or four interviews, some remarks on book jackets and the introductions or afterwards of various books. Scant sources.

As for characters in the respective books, perhaps Hile Troy and Mhoram resonate more with you than Aragorn and Gandalf do, but they are at least as realized (more so IMHO) as Hile Troy and Mhoram. To discuss this properly, though, we would have to agree on what makes a fictional character "real", and then we would have to assess how well each of our four candidates met those criteria. And that is too much for this post at this time.

- Hearthcoal