...like reading Scripture. For me it was a spiritual experience.
- Hearthcoal
stephen donaldson vs tolkien
Moderators: Orlion, kevinswatch
-
Hearthcoal
- Lord
- Posts: 442
- Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2002 2:59 pm
- Location: West Coast USA
-
[Syl]
- Unfettered One
- Posts: 13021
- Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2002 12:36 am
- Has thanked: 2 times
- Been thanked: 1 time
Excellent points, HC.
I would, however, dare that SRD's characters were more dynamic. I'm not suggesting Tolkien had block characters, but their growth was largely that of realizing potential (I think this is a large reason why some have mistakenly called him a racist). Each race of Middle Earth, and accordingly each character, had their destiny to fulfil. This makes even more sense considering the plan of Iluvatar and the song of the Valar in the Silmarillion.
If I had to pick a difference between SRD and JRRT, it would be their views of free will. Tolkien created a world (and perhaps reflected his world view) of predeterminism. SRD hinged the fate of his world on basically the flip of a coin. Free will is one of the strongest themes of The Chronicles.
I wouldn't say either view makes the characters more or less real, though.
I would, however, dare that SRD's characters were more dynamic. I'm not suggesting Tolkien had block characters, but their growth was largely that of realizing potential (I think this is a large reason why some have mistakenly called him a racist). Each race of Middle Earth, and accordingly each character, had their destiny to fulfil. This makes even more sense considering the plan of Iluvatar and the song of the Valar in the Silmarillion.
If I had to pick a difference between SRD and JRRT, it would be their views of free will. Tolkien created a world (and perhaps reflected his world view) of predeterminism. SRD hinged the fate of his world on basically the flip of a coin. Free will is one of the strongest themes of The Chronicles.
I wouldn't say either view makes the characters more or less real, though.
"It is not the literal past that rules us, save, possibly, in a biological sense. It is images of the past. Each new historical era mirrors itself in the picture and active mythology of its past or of a past borrowed from other cultures. It tests its sense of identity, of regress or new achievement against that past.”
-George Steiner
-George Steiner
-
Lord Mhoram
- Lord
- Posts: 9512
- Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2002 1:07 am
Having just seen <i>The Two Towers</i> I am again reminded of something Orson Scott Card said about LOTR, namely that the central character is Middle Earth itself. All the others, from Frodo and Sam to Gandalf and Aragorn, are secondary characters in the main story, which is about the saving of Middle Earth (although in the end it changes into something very unlike what it was before).
SRD, on the other hand, put his human characters first, with the background as secondary. Neither one is wrong. Both certainly work. Yet they result in quite different results, even with so many similiar elements (the all-powerful ring, the Dark Lord, the Quest into the evil lands, staff-bearing wizards, etc.).
SRD, on the other hand, put his human characters first, with the background as secondary. Neither one is wrong. Both certainly work. Yet they result in quite different results, even with so many similiar elements (the all-powerful ring, the Dark Lord, the Quest into the evil lands, staff-bearing wizards, etc.).
"O let my name be in the Book of Love!
It be there, I care not of the other great book Above.
Strike it out! Or, write it in anew. But
Let my name be in the Book of Love!" --Omar Khayam
It be there, I care not of the other great book Above.
Strike it out! Or, write it in anew. But
Let my name be in the Book of Love!" --Omar Khayam
-
TheLeperFairy
I think a TCTC movie would be great.
Every thought that the LOTR movies would flop because there would be no way that Jackson could get the whole scope of the movie on film. He did a pretty good job. I think if they got someone like Peter Jackson do to TCTC it would be amazing! Even better then LOTR in my opinion. The fights in the Illearth War... the eels in The One Tree... it would be absolutely amazing. All good things must be commericalized on nowadays, I am surprised no one has made a movie yet. I got the first book from my dad last year for Christmas (I was 14, now 15) a few months after I tried reading it when I was out of other books, I got to the rape and stopped... I started reading the Lord of the Rings instead, I finished the Fellowship and moved on to the 2 Towers... Thoughly bored, I only read the end with Frodo and Sam and didn't have the urge at all to read the 3rd book so I tried Lord Fouls Bane again I finished that book and haven't put down the rest yet (I am liking the 2nd books in each chronicle the best so far, I am half way through The One Tree) Such great books should be shared with everyone, even if they don't like to read, a movie would be a great way to share the story with everyone.
-
amanibhavam
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 1497
- Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2002 9:54 am
- Location: United Kingdom
- Contact:
Those who do not like to read do not deserve to see this wonderful story in the movie theatre either.. this is my cruel opinion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
love is the shadow that ripens the wine
Languages of Middle-Earth community on Google Plus
Pink Floyd community on Google Plus
love is the shadow that ripens the wine
Languages of Middle-Earth community on Google Plus
Pink Floyd community on Google Plus
-
Damelon
- Lord
- Posts: 8598
- Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 10:40 pm
- Location: Illinois
- Has thanked: 2 times
- Been thanked: 5 times
To me the major difference between Tolkien and SRD is this: Tolkien writes the story to fit the world. SRD fits the world to the story.
The most prominent example of this. In TIW Lord Hyrim and the Bloodguard confront Kinslaughterer on the dock at Coercri. Kinslaughterer is in the process of bending the sea to serve him by using the power of the Illearth Stone.
Foul's Creche is located next to the sea. Couldn't Foul just go on his back porch and bend the sea to his will, using his much larger piece of the Illearth Stone, any time he wanted.
That would be the kind of detail that would have really bothered Tolkien, who was interested in creating a mythology.
SRD is interested in characters and moving the plot everything else is, to use that ugly word, scenery. This IHO is why SRD isn't interested in a prequel.
The most prominent example of this. In TIW Lord Hyrim and the Bloodguard confront Kinslaughterer on the dock at Coercri. Kinslaughterer is in the process of bending the sea to serve him by using the power of the Illearth Stone.
Foul's Creche is located next to the sea. Couldn't Foul just go on his back porch and bend the sea to his will, using his much larger piece of the Illearth Stone, any time he wanted.
That would be the kind of detail that would have really bothered Tolkien, who was interested in creating a mythology.
SRD is interested in characters and moving the plot everything else is, to use that ugly word, scenery. This IHO is why SRD isn't interested in a prequel.
Any jackass can kick down a barn, but it takes a good carpenter to build one.
Sam Rayburn
-
Hearthcoal
- Lord
- Posts: 442
- Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2002 2:59 pm
- Location: West Coast USA
A Note to LeperFairy...
...I would encourage you to finish LOTR.
I read The Hobbit when I was about twelve and got my hands on LOTR when I was thirteen. I read TOTC1&2 when I was about eighteen.
One of the reasons that I enjoyed TOTC so much was that it evoked the same responses in me that I had felt reading LOTR.
I am now significantly older and have read both series (serieses?) several times. They have "aged" well. Each time I read them, I find new things to appreciate. One of the things that makes them so significant to me is that my own life experiences have grown, and I have acquired personal insights into what JRRT and SRD were writing about. These now inform my reading.
- Hearthcoal
I read The Hobbit when I was about twelve and got my hands on LOTR when I was thirteen. I read TOTC1&2 when I was about eighteen.
One of the reasons that I enjoyed TOTC so much was that it evoked the same responses in me that I had felt reading LOTR.
I am now significantly older and have read both series (serieses?) several times. They have "aged" well. Each time I read them, I find new things to appreciate. One of the things that makes them so significant to me is that my own life experiences have grown, and I have acquired personal insights into what JRRT and SRD were writing about. These now inform my reading.
- Hearthcoal
-
Guest
Tolkien vs. Donaldson
In response to Damelon above --
Actually there IS a nasty hole in LOTR's plot much like what you mention. Here is my abridged version of the LOTR trilogy taking advantage of this gaping plot defect:
THE LORD OF THE RINGS, ABRIDGED EDITION by JRR ME
Gandalf: "Bilbo, I've just figured out that RIng you got in The Hobbit is in fact the evil One Ring and must be destroyed. Since you seem much more resilient to it's evil than most creatures, I have one last task for you." Gandalf speaks to nearby moth, and within a day Gwahir the Eagle shows up and picks up Bilbo with the Ring and flies him to Mount Doom in a twinkling. Bilbo complains a little but Gwahir's talon digging into his head convinces him to finally drop the Ring into Mt. Doom. Sauron explodes, the Black Tower falls.
THE END
Well that would have saved everyone a lot bother, wouldn't it have?
As to Tolkien vs. Donaldson, here is my short list of fairly stolen Tolkienisms in TCTU:
Drool Rockworm = Gollum
White Gold Ring = The One RIng
Lords = Wizards
Plains of Ra = Rohan (lots of horseys everywhere)
Elohim / Elmesnedene = The Valar / Undying Lands
Ur-Viles / Orcs
Doriendor Corishev / Helm's Deep
Forestals / Ents
conspicuously absent from TCTU: Kings!! There are no Kings anywhere!
That having been said, I was MUCH more entertained by Donaldson than Tolkien in reading these books ... DOnaldson is so much more accessable to the modern reader, than plodding through the thick word syrup of Tolkien
Actually there IS a nasty hole in LOTR's plot much like what you mention. Here is my abridged version of the LOTR trilogy taking advantage of this gaping plot defect:
THE LORD OF THE RINGS, ABRIDGED EDITION by JRR ME
Gandalf: "Bilbo, I've just figured out that RIng you got in The Hobbit is in fact the evil One Ring and must be destroyed. Since you seem much more resilient to it's evil than most creatures, I have one last task for you." Gandalf speaks to nearby moth, and within a day Gwahir the Eagle shows up and picks up Bilbo with the Ring and flies him to Mount Doom in a twinkling. Bilbo complains a little but Gwahir's talon digging into his head convinces him to finally drop the Ring into Mt. Doom. Sauron explodes, the Black Tower falls.
THE END
Well that would have saved everyone a lot bother, wouldn't it have?
As to Tolkien vs. Donaldson, here is my short list of fairly stolen Tolkienisms in TCTU:
Drool Rockworm = Gollum
White Gold Ring = The One RIng
Lords = Wizards
Plains of Ra = Rohan (lots of horseys everywhere)
Elohim / Elmesnedene = The Valar / Undying Lands
Ur-Viles / Orcs
Doriendor Corishev / Helm's Deep
Forestals / Ents
conspicuously absent from TCTU: Kings!! There are no Kings anywhere!
That having been said, I was MUCH more entertained by Donaldson than Tolkien in reading these books ... DOnaldson is so much more accessable to the modern reader, than plodding through the thick word syrup of Tolkien
By the Way -
The Lords in TCTC can not equal the Wizards in LOTR.
The lords are only mortals with a great deal of learning, power and skill.
The Wizards are immortals: Istari, beings sent to Middle Earth by the Valar to aid the Free Peoples in their resistance of Sauron.
- Seasauce
The lords are only mortals with a great deal of learning, power and skill.
The Wizards are immortals: Istari, beings sent to Middle Earth by the Valar to aid the Free Peoples in their resistance of Sauron.
- Seasauce
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.
I wouldn't mind seeing a short film depicting the Lay of Luthien .. now that'd be something
My take on LoTR and TCTC
...the point about the true character being Middle-Earth itself made a lot of sense to me. Although I would put it otherwise: the characters in LoTR are the different races populating ME.
I like to look at things in this way because otherwise Tolkien's characters are a bit... simple? not the right word. But do any of them really make difficult choices that they regret later? Scarcely do they reconsider things they have done ("The Choices of Master Samwise" is a happy break from this). SRD's characters are like real people - they have tough choices, there are no simple answers, and you will probably regret whatever you do...
But looking at the races in LoTR as characters, you do see dilemmas and some interesting psychological stuff (Elves create the Rings, seeking to preserve ME and their place in it... only to assist Sauron's efforts).
In the end, LoTR is a type of myth. The characters in the myth are not believable - (except for Frodo&Sam perhaps). They have simple choices - fight evil, defeat Sauron, destroy the Ring. In TCTC there are myths as a backdrop - but the focus are the characters and their actions. I can identify with many characters in TCTC, but none in LoTR (on the other hand, who wouldn't like to be Gandalf or Aragorn? Who wouldn't like to live in a myth?)
Therefore my final vote goes to TCTC. Sure, he was heavily influenced by LoTR, as many have posted. But, in the end, every work relies on previous works as a background. And what SRD does with TCTC is totally different than LoTR.
I like to look at things in this way because otherwise Tolkien's characters are a bit... simple? not the right word. But do any of them really make difficult choices that they regret later? Scarcely do they reconsider things they have done ("The Choices of Master Samwise" is a happy break from this). SRD's characters are like real people - they have tough choices, there are no simple answers, and you will probably regret whatever you do...
But looking at the races in LoTR as characters, you do see dilemmas and some interesting psychological stuff (Elves create the Rings, seeking to preserve ME and their place in it... only to assist Sauron's efforts).
In the end, LoTR is a type of myth. The characters in the myth are not believable - (except for Frodo&Sam perhaps). They have simple choices - fight evil, defeat Sauron, destroy the Ring. In TCTC there are myths as a backdrop - but the focus are the characters and their actions. I can identify with many characters in TCTC, but none in LoTR (on the other hand, who wouldn't like to be Gandalf or Aragorn? Who wouldn't like to live in a myth?)
Therefore my final vote goes to TCTC. Sure, he was heavily influenced by LoTR, as many have posted. But, in the end, every work relies on previous works as a background. And what SRD does with TCTC is totally different than LoTR.
.
I'd like to know more about what Drinny means by "regret".
I find that his description of SRD's characters aptly sums up JRRT's characters.
Pippin made more than one choice he regretted. Remember when he dropped the stone down the well in Moria (it was a skeleton in the movie)? Or when he looked into the Palantir? Both of those choices had serious consequences.
Boromir, Denethor, Theoden: did they all not face difficult challenges?
Aragorn had his own personal struggles: remain a simple ranger or take the burden of the crown. And then there is the Arwen problem. How could he ask her to leave her people and give up eternal life? Yet he loved her.
Eowyn falls in love with a man (Aragorn) sworn to another woman. Isn't that a genuine dilema with no really obvious satisfactory answer (it turned out OK for her, and it usually does in "real" life, but it's alwyas tough going through it).
The most painful thing about LOTR, in my opinion, is that Tolkien's characters make great sacrifices and do the right thing (for the most part) and yet in the end there is nothing they can do, no sacrifice they can make to preserve their world and their lives the way they were before they were scarred by evil.
The Ring is destroyed, but so is Frodo. The Elves leave, Hobbits fade away, the race of Numenor diminishes, and Middle Earth eventually becomes the world we know today controlled by men.
If, hypothetically speaking, Frodo, Aragorn, Gandalf & Co. could have looked into the future to January 2003, and could have seen what their world would become would they have made the same choices?
Some times it seems as if Mordor won afterall.
- Seasauce
I find that his description of SRD's characters aptly sums up JRRT's characters.
Frodo faced no simple choices. He could not ignore the danger posed by The One Ring and Sauron. Yet when he chose to take The Ring to its destruction he knew that he was not simply risking his life, but that he was sacrificing it as surely as if he were to die in the quest. For him there were no easy answers and no going back to life as he knew it.like real people - they have tough choices, there are no simple answers, and you will probably regret whatever you do.
Pippin made more than one choice he regretted. Remember when he dropped the stone down the well in Moria (it was a skeleton in the movie)? Or when he looked into the Palantir? Both of those choices had serious consequences.
Boromir, Denethor, Theoden: did they all not face difficult challenges?
Aragorn had his own personal struggles: remain a simple ranger or take the burden of the crown. And then there is the Arwen problem. How could he ask her to leave her people and give up eternal life? Yet he loved her.
Eowyn falls in love with a man (Aragorn) sworn to another woman. Isn't that a genuine dilema with no really obvious satisfactory answer (it turned out OK for her, and it usually does in "real" life, but it's alwyas tough going through it).
The most painful thing about LOTR, in my opinion, is that Tolkien's characters make great sacrifices and do the right thing (for the most part) and yet in the end there is nothing they can do, no sacrifice they can make to preserve their world and their lives the way they were before they were scarred by evil.
The Ring is destroyed, but so is Frodo. The Elves leave, Hobbits fade away, the race of Numenor diminishes, and Middle Earth eventually becomes the world we know today controlled by men.
If, hypothetically speaking, Frodo, Aragorn, Gandalf & Co. could have looked into the future to January 2003, and could have seen what their world would become would they have made the same choices?
Some times it seems as if Mordor won afterall.
- Seasauce
Couple of things come to mind...
(1) Eagles in LOTR. No way a big friggin' eagle could've gotten into Mordor unnoticed. Sauron would've had flocks of bird, the Nazgul, maybe even a dragon unleashed in no time--plus several thousand Orc archers firing as fast as they could!
(2) The characters in LOTR do have dilemnas, but they remain relatively "straightforward" in both nature and response. Whereas Eowyn is enamoured of Aragorn--who loves and is loved by Arwen--then falls in love with Faramir, Hile Troy loves Elena (and did she know, btw?) who has all these weird passions for Thomas Covenant, who in turn doesn't fall for anyone until many years have passed--and soon after that he dies! You can see why TCTC comes across as more complex than LOTR!
(3) SRD himself is a big fan of Tolkien, and has said to some extent LOTR served as inspiration for the Chronicles. I like to compare them, and to be sure have my own preferences, but fundamentally both of them are masterpieces.
(1) Eagles in LOTR. No way a big friggin' eagle could've gotten into Mordor unnoticed. Sauron would've had flocks of bird, the Nazgul, maybe even a dragon unleashed in no time--plus several thousand Orc archers firing as fast as they could!
(2) The characters in LOTR do have dilemnas, but they remain relatively "straightforward" in both nature and response. Whereas Eowyn is enamoured of Aragorn--who loves and is loved by Arwen--then falls in love with Faramir, Hile Troy loves Elena (and did she know, btw?) who has all these weird passions for Thomas Covenant, who in turn doesn't fall for anyone until many years have passed--and soon after that he dies! You can see why TCTC comes across as more complex than LOTR!
(3) SRD himself is a big fan of Tolkien, and has said to some extent LOTR served as inspiration for the Chronicles. I like to compare them, and to be sure have my own preferences, but fundamentally both of them are masterpieces.
"O let my name be in the Book of Love!
It be there, I care not of the other great book Above.
Strike it out! Or, write it in anew. But
Let my name be in the Book of Love!" --Omar Khayam
It be there, I care not of the other great book Above.
Strike it out! Or, write it in anew. But
Let my name be in the Book of Love!" --Omar Khayam
meh, I found LOTR boring. Masterpiece...bah! Maybe I'm missing some big underlying thing, but I was never really interested in anything in LOTR...it was too...what's the word? Crappy.
(note that the opinions expressed above are soley those of me and are therefore the only correct opinions, but you are free to be wrong and disagree)
(note that the opinions expressed above are soley those of me and are therefore the only correct opinions, but you are free to be wrong and disagree)
-
Loredoctor
- Lord
- Posts: 18609
- Joined: Sun Jul 14, 2002 11:35 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Victoria
- Contact:
I too found LOTR boring. I hated the hobbit characters. At times it reads like a kids book (Tom Bombadil comes to mind). The battles aren't handled well, either. I love TCTC. It has more interesting characters, and a villain that is truly evil.
Waddley wrote:your Highness Sir Dr. Loredoctor, PhD, Esq, the Magnificent, First of his name, Second Cousin of Dragons, White-Gold-Plate Wielder!
-
variol son
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 5777
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2002 1:07 pm
- Location: New Zealand
I love much of Tolkien's Middle Earth, but I have found that his works include far too many cheesey scenes for me to love them that much.
Sum sui generis
Vs
Sum sui generis
Vs
You do not hear, and so you cannot be redeemed.
In the name of their ancient pride and humiliation, they had made commitments with no possible outcome except bereavement.
He knew only that they had never striven to reject the boundaries of themselves.
In the name of their ancient pride and humiliation, they had made commitments with no possible outcome except bereavement.
He knew only that they had never striven to reject the boundaries of themselves.
-
Otter Emperor
- Servant of the Land
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2004 2:58 am
- Location: New York
- Contact:
Tolkien vs Donaldson
Look, no one is going to win any battles here. Tolkien was great. He wrote an entire history. Lord of the Rings represents a very small moment in that history where everything sped up and got resolved in a relatively short period of time. The guy was a literary genius.
Donaldson would never have been published if not for Tolkien. You ask him. I guarantee you he has nothing but good things to say about Tolkien.
That said, SRD did not "rewrite" LOTR. Its apples and oranges. The TC books stand on their own. And quite well, thank you very much. Anyone who has bothered to read the opening passages of Lord Foul's Bane knows that SRD was laying the groundwork for a completely different type of story. So the story had some familiar "tokens", big deal. SRD's books talk about the agony and conflict within the human sole.
I guess I am just saying that comparing the two is a futile endeavor. They both are great stories written by great writers.
Donaldson would never have been published if not for Tolkien. You ask him. I guarantee you he has nothing but good things to say about Tolkien.
That said, SRD did not "rewrite" LOTR. Its apples and oranges. The TC books stand on their own. And quite well, thank you very much. Anyone who has bothered to read the opening passages of Lord Foul's Bane knows that SRD was laying the groundwork for a completely different type of story. So the story had some familiar "tokens", big deal. SRD's books talk about the agony and conflict within the human sole.
I guess I am just saying that comparing the two is a futile endeavor. They both are great stories written by great writers.
Something there is in beauty.
ELR
ELR