stephen donaldson vs tolkien

[arwenavery]

i know we could spend hours debating teh intracicies of each , but hte truth is tolkien ceated a genre !!!! he created teh space for donaldson to work in !!!! i love donaldson as much as everybody here but read teh books again , who can argue that there are irrefutable simalarities???[/img]

[danlo]

I totally agree w/u Arwen but u might want 2 check out E.R. Edison as well--who wrote b4 Tolkien, maps, swords & sorcery, quests & a character from our world (like TC) who suddenly finds himself in a different world!his books r VERY cool--but perhaps not as intricately developed as Tolkien.

[Bannor]

Without any doubt, all writers are influenced by someone. Surely Donaldson was influenced by Tolkien, but SD's books are his own, and he is tremendous writer. I believe Tolkien was more blessed in gifts: calligrapher, artist, linguist, writer. I love to read both of them, but I would no more have just one author in my house than I would have one CD.

[Foamfollower1013]

ITA, Bannor. People are always pointing out the similarities between SRD and Tolkien - but when you think about it, Tolkien's ideas weren't really original either. He "borrowed" ideas from old myths and things - just as SRD used some of the same ideas, but took them in a totally different direction. If you think about it, no one's ideas are really original - we just take ideas that were there before and expand on them.

Plus, as someone else pointed out, another big difference between SRD and Tolkien is that Tolkien was a linguist. He created languages, and then created the stories to put them in. SRD, on the other hand, is a novelist - he writes for the stories themselves.

~Foamy~

[Bannor]

Thanks Foamy, but just for dumb guys like me, what does ITA stand for?

[Hearthcoal]

I Totally Agree



I mean...that's what ITA stands for...not that I agree that you're "dumb".




(I always get a little heart wrench when people say things like that about themselves, even if I know they don't mean it.)

[Bannor]

Thanks again, Hearthcoal. (I seem to be commnenting on your posts a lot this morning.)

[arwenavery]

been rereading the lord of the rings ( forgot how brill it was!!) and have just realised two differences , in the basic atmosphere of the book.....
in LOTR everything seems to take such a long time ( Frodo waiting a year to leave the shire , The Ents discussion !!) but also good things seem to happen a lot more often in tolkiens work.. every time something major happens, the fellowship seem to get a break ?? is this only me ???eg... when aragorn , gimli and legolas go in search of merry and pippin they meet the riders of rohan who give them horses as presents.....?? in donaldsons work there seems to be a lot of " and then it got worse " moments.....sorry about this waffle i find myself doing it every now and again!!

[Guest]

Sorry to interupt, but just read though this discussion topic and I thought that I would throw in my own idea. I am only halfway though The One Tree in the second chronicles and I have read Tolkien's Hobbit and LOTR series many times. Tolkien seemed to put alot on time & energy into the characters being part of the GREATER STORY whereas SRD puts him emphasis into the GREAT CHARACTERS being part of a story. Don't know whether that makes much sense. .Both have beautiful writing styles that are unique and creative each in their own way & I enjoy each for a different reasons. You can't compare Apples & oranges even though some people think they taste the same. Anyway that's all i have to say. Love the discussion and the web site as a whole.

[Hearthcoal]

AA, you are picking up on one of the themes in JRRT's work, that is "the hand of Providence". The backstory to LOTR is that greater powers are at work. Unlike SRD's TCTC, LOTR has a Creator that is actively involved events within his creation, though often moving unseen or working through agents.

In TCTC, the Creator is more hands off. Yes, he chose TC and LA to be his emissaries, so to speak, but he himself does not get actively involved.

(Things in LOTR do seem to take a long time. It was actually 17 years from the Long Expected Party until Frodo left the Shire. Even after he knew he had to leave, he still took a year to finally go.)

[Guest]

things in LotR seem to take a long time, and yet they are only a trifle compared to the timeframe in Silmarillion:-)

the beauty of Tolkien's world to me is that you have a whole literary spectrum if you read his works: a mythology (Silmarillion), a children's tale (The Hobbit) and a historical novel (LotR); all we miss is a hobbit soap-opera:-))

[amanibhavam]

that was me above...

[Guest]

Not to worry, JRRT did give us at least one soap opera. It involves Pippin's sister, Pearl, and the "accidental" death of Lalia the Great (aka the Fat).

Lalia ruled the Tooks and the Great Smials for 22 years. She was not at the Long Expected Party, being prevented by her great size and immobility. Her son, Ferumbras, had no wife, being unable to find anyone willing to occupy apartments at the Great Smials under the rule of Lalia. In the Spring of 1402 (the year after the LEP) her clumsy attendant let Lalia's heavy wheelchair run over the threshold of the Great Door and tip Lalia down the flight of steps into the garden.

It was widely rumored that the attendant was Pearl (Pippin's sister), though the Tooks tried to keep the matter within the family. At the celebration of Ferumbras' accension the displeasure and regret of the family was formally expressed by the exclusion of Pearl from the ceremony and feast; but it did not escape notice that later (after a decent interval) Pearl appeared in a splendid necklace of her name-jewels that had loan lain in the hoard of the Thains.

I am quoting loosely from Letter 214 (draft) To A.C. Nunn, not dated; probably late 1958-early 1959.

JRRT did not elaborate more on the nature of Pearl's relationship with Ferumbras. Pippin eventually became Thain himself after the War of the Ring and, presumably, Ferumbras' death.

[amanibhavam]

I'll okk up this letter, thanks:-)

[Goma Pile]

This is an interesting topic in that people would compare two of the greats. I read The Hobbit as a kid and The Lord of the Rings as part of English at secondary school. Also I was heavily influenced as a kid with the work of C.S. Lewis, The Chronicles of Narnia starting with that all time great The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe. I have read both Chronicles of Thomas Covenant three times and I definitely rate it as an all time great up there with The Lord of the Rings. I must admit that I have never tried to compare them as they are each great pieces of literary work.

I have noted in other discussions people trying to compare Gandalf and Mhoram. Both are brilliant characters. And there are other discussions that talk about movies. I read one discussion where the consensus appeared to be that it would be better to make a movie of Mordents' Need rather than The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant.

There have been several books that one may have thought it impossible to make into a movie for example "Dune" or "Do Androids Count Electric Sheep" ("Blade Runner").

I thought it almost impossible that The Lord of the Rings could be brought to the big screen, however the screenplay was very well written and Peter Jackson was able to bring out much of what I had visualised in the book. After seeing the trailer for The Two Towers it would appear to me that the movies will get better, just like the books.

I think SRD will become one of those literary immortals, if he isn't already, just like JRT.

[danlo]

I agree GP, but my sister, being a total Philip K. Dick freak, would b a stickler and say that it's "Do Andriods Dream of Electic Sheep?" 2 other Dick short stories that were combined in2 a movie were "We Can Remember It For You Wholesale" and "Overdrawn at the Memory Bank"--the movie being: Total Recall.

[berencamlost7]

The thing about Donaldson is that like Tolkien he deserves serious debate. Their characters, setting, plots etc all give ample material for discussion.

I would say that Donaldson was the first post Tolkien author that you could definitely say this about.

Lucky that we have the Net, so we can actually discuss SRD with a wider group.

[Nerdanel]

I think Tolkien and Donaldson are both deep authors, but with Donaldson the depth is close to surface while Tolkien's depth is, well, deep.

Also I think ultimately Tolkien and Donaldson are both pretty dark authors, but with Donaldson you can hardly miss the darkness and with Tolkien the darkness and the view of things getting worse with the passage of time is partially obscured by the light in the story.

Still those things manage to give a completely different feel. A young person can read and enjoy Tolkien and happily miss all the deep bits but would most likely find Donaldson too difficult and disturbing.

Of course Tolkien's Silmarillion is the notable exception to the above.

[Skyweir]

Still those things manage to give a completely different feel. A young person can read and enjoy Tolkien and happily miss all the deep bits but would most likely find Donaldson too difficult and disturbing.

brilliantly perceptive point .. I havent thought of the comparison between these 2 unique authors in that light before ..

[Bannor]

I agree completely with Donaldson's TCTC being dark. I 'd agree with Tolkien as well, but I remember my first reading of LOTR. There was Bilbo's birthday party, and I thought "eleventy-first birthday"? (Don't remember the exact age) He certainly got a lot deeper and dark after that. Glad I stuck around for the whole set of books!