Kevin's Watch

Fullmetal660 wrote:Has anybody read any stuff by david eddings? I've read the belgariad and am currently reading the mallorean, and I have to say thats its quite good.

It should be painfully obvious that these two trilogies are so close as to be almost interchangeable. McKiernen writes his story with barely enough minimal changes to avoid a lawsuit.

Malik23 wrote:I only read the 1st book, and that was decades ago. I hate to trash something that others enjoy, so I'll respectfully say that I didn't care for it (to put it mildly). Perhaps I didn't give it a chance, or I was too young to judge it properly. But if it felt childish and simplistic to my teenage sensibilities, I don't see how my opinion will change now. I have no plans to revisit this series and give it another chance. I remember thinking that Terry Brooks was better, and that's saying quite a lot!

This reminds me . . . did anyone ever read The Iron Tower Trilogy by Dennis L. McKiernan? It's the most appalling example of Tolkien-imitation I've ever seen, complete with Hobbit-like creatures (Warrows . . . the main one is named, Tuckerby Underbank!) with large furry feet and burrow homes. There is a "Mines of Moria" sequence that is virtually identical to Tolkien's, down to the Balrog-like creature, the Watcher in the water (with tentacles, etc.), and a "Bridge of Khazad-dum" scene! I don't remember much from this book, which I read around the same time as Eddings, but the feeling of disgust is still very strong. If you haven't read this series, I recommend these books for the sheer, astonishing experience of seeing how blatant someone can imitate Tolkien, and yet still get away with being published. The parallels are too numerous to remember.

A quick Google search provided this:

It should be painfully obvious that these two trilogies are so close as to be almost interchangeable. McKiernen writes his story with barely enough minimal changes to avoid a lawsuit.

Sorry to thread-jack. Like I said, the Eddings discussion reminded me of what I disliked about most 80s fantasy.

19 of 23 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars A Tolkien Zealot's View on "The Iron Tower", November 29, 2001
By A Customer
The only question that really plagues me after reading "The Iron Tower" is simple - why was it written? Mr. McKiernan is obviously a fan of Tolkien and, to be more precise, "The Lord of the Rings," which he even admits in the preface. No shame in that. I too adore Tolkien's work, and, in my mind, "The Lord of the Rings" is the greatest fantasy story ever told. But in spite of McKiernan's admiration for said genre pioneer, he was content to take "The Lord of the Rings" and recycle it, albeit with a handful of different character names. And while he was busy attempting to pass this story off as his own, he forgot everything that made Tolkien so wonderful in the process - and anything that makes good fantasy in general.

"The Iron Tower" isn't only a shameless copy of a beloved tale, but it's also quite poorly written. One has to wonder if McKiernan was out of elementary school when he began jotting it down. Dialogue between characters is particularly absurd, and again it is because McKiernan attempts (and severely fails) to copy the more classical style of Tolkien. One example of thousands is this: "Hai! You have named it well; for Jet it was: no horse is blacker!" And aside from the poor quality of this tidbit, any Tolkien fan, even unfamiliar with McKiernan, will think to themselves, "Hmmm... Shadowfax, anyone?"

The book opens with very clear parallels to "The Lord of the Rings," but, at first, there are at least a few interesting touches to keep things mildly entertaining. But things get steadily more offensive as the story progresses. Complete with a party of three Warrows (or Hobbits, if you prefer), an Elf, a Dwarf, and a future King with a magical sword, the party of heroes is forced by perilous circumstance to enter an abandoned Dwarven mine (aka, Moria) that was evacuated for fear of the Ghath (aka, Balrog) - a beast who still lingers in the mines. But as McKiernan might say, "Hai! Lo! That be not all!" For as the companions are debating a course of action, they are attacked by a tentacled beast that lurks in the water just outside the magically concealed gateway. Where have I heard this before? Except, of course, it was much more thrilling in its original format, to say the very least.

Yet there's more still. "The Iron Tower" is complete with its own version of Ringwraiths, wargs (called vulgs), orcs, and more. Surprisingly, the only thing that's missing is a Gandalf character. But I can assure you, had McKiernan included one, the company would have temporarily lost him in the Dwarven mines to the dreaded whip of the Ghath. For goodness sakes, the book even comes complete with an appendix at its conclusion! Perhaps McKiernan thinks that his world of Mithgar is as detailed and as rich as Middle-earth just because every creature, character, or place encountered has a different name to each race. ("Kraken!" cried Galen. "Maduk!" shouted Brega.)And just to note, to fuel further audacity, Tuck (aka, Frodo) carries a short sword called Bane that glows at its edges when enemies are about. Stings, doesn't it? Get it? STINGS?

Simply put, "The Iron Tower" is a fraud. It should never have been published. In fact, there should be some sort of law against it. I have in my day read and even enjoyed many Tolkien knock-offs ("The Sword of Shannara," or "The Eye of the World," for example), so I am open-minded about these matters. But "The Iron Tower" goes too far. It is shameful. It is outright theft. Fans of Tolkien should heed this advice well: steer clear unless you're looking for a good laugh. And for those who are not familiar with Tolkien, don't you dare accept McKiernan as a suitable replacement, for your own sake. There are a handful of interesting moments, but not enough to outweigh the wrongs that were done in allowing this series publication. With more work, McKiernan might have paid homage rather than desecrating sacred ground.