Kevin's Watch

I didn't read LOTR until I saw the films first - which I absolutely love...

...but I still liked the novel slightly better than the films...

...and I chose Tolkien over SRD, just barely...

Both were great novels, but TCTC has characters that I actually truly and deeply care about. The Illearth War was also the second book to give me a "holy crap, I can't believe that just happened! I'm not going to be able to sleep for days now, dammit!" impression. (For those who are curious and especially for those who don't care the first book was Foundation and Empire)

It's been bout fourteen years since Foundation for me....can't remember too many specifics...was freakin' mind blowing though... (I think I read it after Skylark and Lensmen series')

I think ultimately what I believe is this: Tolkien may have created the genre, but Donaldson expanded it and revolutionized it. I believe, as a result, that TCTC is a better series than LotR, though I can understand why some would have issues with this statement.

To provide an example, The Beatles could be credited with creating the modern concept of rock, but I am never going to say they are the best because others (Pink Floyd) came after and expanded and progressed it. That isn't saying that the Beatles (or LotR) are unimportant though...

I totally agree.

I voted for Donaldson , even though I enjoyed both authors books I actually read SRD books well before I knew of Tolkiens books, SRD books was the first major fantasy book I read while been a teenager so I have more of a connection to his works than Tolkiens .I only came across Lord of the rings when in college.
I believe SRD books are more intense than Tokiens .

Tolkien, and it's not even close, and that's no disrespect to SRD either

Middle-Earth is just so much richer, deeper, more magical. He's the Godfather, and SRD is simply and excellent exponent of the genre which JRR invented for all intents and purposes.

I thought I'd add my opinion to this forum. I believe both authors spoke significantly to their respective generations. Tolkien responded to the world up to and through the second world war, whereas Donaldson speaks to those conditions we find ourselves in during the last 1/4 of the 20th century through the present. The conflicts are different; the possible solutions are different. The solutions that worked for Tolkien (destroying the One Ring) wouldn't work in Donaldson's Land because as change comes faster and more profoundly for our world, the idea of defeating just one manifestation of Evil (like Hitler) wouldn't work in the Land. Especially as Covenant interacted in the "Second Chronicles" with the devistation of the Land by the Sunbane and the evil of possession, he confronts more modern ills than Tolkien conceived of.

But both understood that the resolution of conflicts may provide catharsis for both the character and the reader, and the feeling I get at reading the endings of both authors' works leaves me with the same melancholy euphoria, the "eucatastrophe" Tolkien speaks of as the sudden turn towards the happy ending coupled with the realization of the cost of such "victories." And both of these reactions are very realistic, so that the question of whether the story intesects with our own world or is set in some imaginary golden world of the past is irrelevant; the emotions are real.

Yes Tolkien's backstory and wealth of historical detail is vast and admirable but Donaldson's history and the effect of that history on the present culture of the peoples of the Land is equally significant to the working out of the tales. I LIKE Tolkien better because Covenant is harder to connect with, but I believe SRD has presented more insightful themes and challenges for us to try to incorporate into our own lives and our world. I am in awe of the insights Donaldson provides about how to confront conflict and what we do or don't have control over. And as an English teacher I am always intrigued by and challenged by ambiguity and complexity of character. In this way Donaldson clearly surpasses Tolkien.

I suppose the bottom line is that I am appreciative of Tolkien for opening the field for fantasy stories and to Donaldson for making his fantasy so relevant for us today.

- totally agree with what cbarkley said!

And, I'll be forever grateful to Tolkien for opening my eyes to this genre, and forever in awe of Donaldson for expanding and challenging the reader's perceptions of storytelling, life, the universe and everything!

Awesome post, CBark.

Definitely Donaldson.

Though I'm biased since I dislike arthurian type fantasy in general, as I don't go for the glamorization of the ruling classes (e.g. the idea that the proper heir must ascend to the throne for all to be set right with the world.) Yes, I've read all the Jungian analysis that it's symbolic and not advocating monarchy, but still, grrrr... In reality, the ruling class in the Middle Ages was much more similar to Mark Twain's writing in "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court" than anything like the noble Aragorn/Arthur/etc. who is noble because he happens to have the blood of kings in his veins. Or that Theodin is a good king once he can throw off his evil adviser. (though in fairness, my understanding is that in Medieval times, lords did take their duty to protect their subjects from invasion seriously, at least prior to the late Medieval/early Renaissance period. So Theodin is actually more believably portrayed than Aragorn.)

In contrast, the Lords of Revelstone (a) do not govern, but rather work to heal and beautify the Land, so their role is closer to that of the Elves in LotR and (b) it's more of a meritocracy in that the best and brightest of the Loresraat are invited to become Lords.

Structurally, I like Donaldson better as there is more variety in the plot of the books.

In Tolkein's work, the siege of Gondor is actually rather boring because we've seen it all before and resolved the same way at Helm's Deep. (Though Donaldson is guilty of the same repeats with respect to TCs bargains in books 1 and 2)

On a more smaller scale note. In LotR, the Balrog is lurking deep in the heart of the Earth. In TCTC, it is the Earthblood that lurks down in the depths of the Earth (which is much more dangerous in its way than the balrog) I like the Earthblood better

Although I have great regard for Donaldson's work, Tolkien wins out for me on this one.

Both series of novels have their good and bad points in terms of pacing ("meanwhile, in Mordor, Frodo and Sam were still plodding...." / "'for the love of god Covenant, stop whining about being a leper and just blow Foul away' said Mhoram...." would have been good additions), characterisation (Why does Legolas have no personality ? All three ravers are exaclty the same - at least Sauron had nine of them...) and plot (Why did Frodo not just hitch a lift with the eagles to mount doom instead of spending 2 and a half books walking there ? If Covenant is really such a git, why does he even care if the Land is destroyed ? ) but Tolkien did the better job of making his story immersive and removing the obvious influence of an author from the story.

There are no characters or events within TCTC that happen which do not have a direct bearing on the storyline. Everyone he meets exists merely to advance the plot in some way or another.
Tolkien, on the other hand, has many characters and events that have no infuence on the story as a whole - most illustrated by the Tom Bombadil sequence. This does nothing for the plot (as shown by it's omission from the films) but does serve as an illustration that there is a 'real' world around the characters that may well be entirely indifferent to the evolving story arc (I always thought it a pity that Bombadil never turns around to Frodo and says "Honestly mate, I don't give a rat's ass what you do with that trinket, I was here before Sauron and I'll be here when he's gone - now stop oggling Goodberry and get the hell out of my house"... but never mind).

The real part of TCTC that hammers this home for me, however, is that Donaldson could not even be bothered to name the 'King and Queen' who ruled the land before Berek even though they should surely have been the most famous of the old historical figures, especially the Queen for whom the great hero Berek performed all his mighty deeds. This isn't just some minor plot detail point like 'what was the family lineage of Peregrin Took' or whatever other Tolkienesque hyper-detail, these should have been significant parts of the history of the Land - did the royalty have any descendents or other heirs ? Was the old order of royalty completely cast aside by Berek after his victory (he spends all his effort in fighting a war for her then, when it's all over, he puts himself in charge ?) ?

In fairness, Donaldson has to make a living as a writer and so needs to spend his time writing more books, unlike Tolkien who got paid for being a professor at Oxford University and thus spent hs entire life essentially writing one book so had quite a bit more time to fill in the gaps but nevertheless it still leaves LOtR as the more accomplished piece of writing.


PS - Forgive me if I missed the point of this thread competely, if it meant 'Tolkien vs. Donaldson' fight then I think probably Donaldson - he's old but he's still livelier than Tolkien (unless it's zombie Tolkien, in which case, I'm not sure......).

Welcome to the Watch, great_bu. (Why not introduce yourself over in the Summonsing forum and get the new member special treatment?)

And good post. You seem to consider the immersive experience paramount. Given that, it's understandable that Tolkien would be your preferred author.

The Donaldson/Tolkien dichotomy does not work all that well for me because Robert E. Howard is my personal gold standard.
I voted Donaldson because his work is clearly superior. While Howard blows both Tolkien and Donaldson away for his breathtakingly original, yet iconic work, I would still elevate Donaldson over Howard simply because his writing is on a far higher scale and accomplishes so much more, just on the scale of being highly literate. Both Tolkien and Howard make great background for comic books or graphic novels, but Donaldson's work is actually too literate to be effective unless done by a graphic novelist with an exceptional way to express those ideas in the medium.
Donaldson I read when I was 14; Tolkien when I was 9. It could not have worked for me the other way around. Donaldson would have been too difficult at 9 and Tolkien would not have been challenging enough at 14.
But Tolkien and Howard were the originators-- to the extent, that in reference to their works people divide fantasy fiction between the "British" and "American" schools.
Lord Dunnsany wrote excellent fantasy prior to Tolkien in the "British" school. A. Merit and Edgar Rice Burroughs both wrote excellent fantasy pre-dating Howard in the "American" school. Donaldson seems to transcend genre, however, and that is a sign of being a truly glorious writer.
I find each and every creation found in TCTC to be so breathtakingly original to make all earlier comparisons moot.
In spite of the fact that Robert E. Howard is my holy grail in terms of fantasy writing, Donaldson manages to be the notable exception to this rule. I have a hard time justifying REH as my favorite fantasist, when compared to Donaldson.
This problem does not exist when it comes to Tolkien.

If I may throw my two cents in.....

First, They are two different worlds, with their own beings and can't be compared and shouldn't be.

With the release of the movie, it's hard. If they release a movie AND it was done as well as LOTR, then maybe.

I read about suggesting a series instead. Bad idea. Has anyone seen the Sword of Truth, Terry Goodkind's series of books? They ruined it on TV. It was equal to Lost in Space in the 60's , no I take that back, Lost in Space was better.

I think that we should not forget Robert Jordan, even though he passed away and Sanderson could not live up to the challenge of finishing his work (not many could). Jordan's world was fairly well imagined and self consistent. I am not saying that someone could not poke a hole in Jordan's conception of the world setting of TWOT, but it seemed to hang together rather well.

Tolkien's world was more than a world. It was a cosmos made to look like a mythology. Possibly some hole's, but those could be overlooked from a literary standpoint due to the world's mythological standing.

Donaldson just plain messed up a little on the internal consistency of his world. Not enough to ruin TCTC, but it was a little disappointing to see such an excellent writer do that to his (potentially) magnum opus. For the record, Donaldson remains the writer which against which I measure ALL recent fantasy literature.

If I were to rank them according to the 'fullness' and potential of the worlds created, then I would have to rank them as:

1. Tolkien
2. Jordan
3. Donaldson

If I rank them according to how riveting they were:

1. Donaldson
2. Jordan (pre- book 8 or nine)
3. Tolkien

If we throw Erikson into the mix, that might change a few things, but something feels 'left out' in the development of Erikson's world. Not finished reading that series yet, so I may have to postpone final judgement.

What do you guys think?

The choice is too tough for me to make. Tolkien is the better designer ("sub-creator"), but I consider Donaldson the better writer.

I have read both LOTR and TCTC multiple times. With a name like DoctorGamgee, one needn't wonder who I chose.

I appreciate TCTC, but in all honesty, I didn't care for these books or relate to the first two trios until I read the intro to the newest version. I was intrigued by the Land and some of its properties; but the characters never really gripped me and half the time I couldn't figure out what to make of the story. SRD's language usage is contrived and chaotic in many places, and while I must admit that I am looking forward to the next book (the final one), once it is over, I will probably never read them again.

He did a better job with the Gap series, in my opinion.

Not that JRR was without fault. There are several passages where one is befuddled. But the story is far easier to relate to, mythology and all. And I read TCTC before LOTR, so I seemingly don't fit into the paradigm of "first read is favorite" suggested above.

But to each their own. Martin was far more gripping, even though it took me forever to keep the names straight. And in terms of stories which keep me coming back for their creativity (though the writing is not as good as either candidate listed) The True Game series by Tepper is pretty riveting.

I've just been more emotionally moved by Donaldson's characters than Tolkien's. And I can get annoyed with JRRT's attention to details ( such as the long list of Gondor's rulers and what some of them did) that have no bearing on the main points of the story.

Tolkien's world-creating got too obsessive-compulsive for me, which is why I stopped reading his background material once I'd finished The Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales. (None of that Book of Lost Tales stuff for me, thanks.)

Yeah, Tolkein wasn't doing it to entertain you, he was just creating an internally consistent world for his language.

I did love Jordan's world building. But he lost the plot badly and sadly died just as he was getting it back.

Sanderson didn't do too badly following him.

--A