Kevin's Watch

Yeah. People often mistakenly believe that Tolkien created a world to serve his story. It was, of course, not like that. He created the world, the story was a side project.

Also, AFAICR, Tolkien's revised editions of LOTR added the appendices and other details, and I believe this was in response to the responses he got to his story. Many people wanted to know more. He was obliging them.

It is, from a design standpoint, one of the oddest stories ever written.

Well put.

--A

Avatar wrote: Well put.

--A

I agree!

HLT! Damn you! Where have you been?

Go post more.

--A

Yes, HLT, do come back more now that the Linden question has been settled once and for all.

And we won!!!!!

THOOLAH!!!

u.

He's teasing us U.

A brief appearance, and then nothing...bastard.

--A

I voted Tolkien.

My love for the land is well documented but although the Fellowship was incredibly detailed geographically, the character were already engaging.

Also Id like to note that The Appendices were not an afterthought composed after the fact to appease fans.

Tolkien developed Elvish and the connections between character and their geneology for want of a better descriptor as he did the other books. In fact it is known that his inclusion of the Appendices at the end of ROTK were the very reason the publication release was delayed. In modern publications the Appendices can be purchased as a seperate addendum but that was not the case with the early publications.

Also Tolkien wrangled with the publishers translating the books into other languages over the Appendices as he included them at the end of ROTK, but he acquiesced part of their removal where there direct relevance to the core story line was seen as superfluous.

The three books were originally published with The Appendices, not as an after thought as posited, between 1954 and 1955. But were written in parts and stages between 1937 and 1949. I know he sent parts including parts of the Appendices to his children for their entertainment and edification.

LOTRs was my intriduction to the wonder of fantasy worlds.

Tolkien built an amazing world and influenced 100s of future fantasy authors including Donaldson.

Donaldson is similarly godlike in his world creation but for me the first three books were the best. The later books 2nd chrons to me werent as gripping for me. The sun bane was an interesting twist but was never sold on the kid err kids and the mum TCs wife. They continued to irritate me.

I'm just now reading The Silmarillion and suddenly all of TLOTR is starting to fall into place. Do I like it - I'm not sure yet........but I'm in some way captivated by it. It's clearly biblical in it's presentation - not an easy style of writing for the modern reader to run with over an extended period of time - but the epic grandiure of the story it tells is mighty enough to hold one and ensure that the inconvenient feel of the text is worth the effort put in in sticking with it. But like I say, now suddenly I know where Frodo went at the end, why Galadriel so swept Gimli off his feet; what the Ents were and why the Elves were so sad.

But why, you will ask, am I posting here, when I am talking about a work of Tolkien that I'm reading. The answer is that of course the experience of reading the book clearly throws into relief the comparisons between the two authors, Donaldson and Tolkien - a comparison from which the latter can but emerge victorious. The sheer scale of the achievement of Tolkien dwarfs that of Donaldson in a way that I'm sure SRD himself would acknowledge. The depth of the universe that he created (for it can be called no less) on his own with no third party input - the languages, the mythology, the textual background - is of an order that the Chrons, for all their merits, do not begin to compare with (in fact they don't even try; they are simply not the same thing).

Now early in the thread, someone observes that while the above argument has weight, in the actual comparison of the stories of TLOTR compared to the Chrons, it is the Chrons that come out hands down the winner in terms of invention and storytelling. In fact the metaphor of building a huge and beautiful theatre and then putting on a second rate low-grade amateur production in it is used to rate Tolkien's actual story itself, so unimpressed is the poster (whose name I forget) with the actual degree of inventiveness that Tolkien employed (or rather didn't in his view) in the work. This I think, might appear on relative terms to be the case - yes Tolkien's work follows the fairly standard quest and battle basic plot - but prior to him there was no standard quest and battle basic plot! He made it from scratch and in doing so created the very stage upon which every fantasy novel, all the D and D rpg's, all the video gaming worlds from Skyrim to WoW are now set. Given the backdrop against which Tolkien built his universe, then latterly wrote his story, the criticism leveled above simply holds no water. The invention, the imaginative leaps, the depth of story, the telling the rich use of language - in every way Tolkien must be regarded as the master and Donaldson the pupil - and that must be true of the stories themselves, because there is no comparable background to the Chrons upon which a comparison could be based. Tolkien was not following the basic plot - he was inventing it and his work must be seen in that light. Yes, the pupil Donaldson had promise, but was never, could never, will never, surpass the Master - the unmatched, the incomparable, the indefinable J R R Tolkien.

You are all wrong.

It was Lloyd Alexander.

peter wrote:The answer is that of course the experience of reading the book clearly throws into relief the comparisons between the two authors, Donaldson and Tolkien - a comparison from which the latter can but emerge victorious.

Tolkien created a legendarium. The story was a side project.
Donaldson created a story. The story was the point.

Remember, the only reason there is a Lord of the Rings is that Tolkien was pushed, by his publishers, for a Hobbit II. He never really loved it before it came to be. It had depth only because he borrowed from what was already written.

Donaldson wrote because he loved his story, and he loved what he believed a story could do. Epic Vision. He created only what he needed to tell his story. Man's struggle to be an effective passion was his guiding star.

Yes, Tolkien's story is in a bigger world. But, yes, Donaldson's story is more meaningful.

[Edit] fixed typo 'word' -> 'world'.

+JMJ+

Okay, okay.

Sarge, I don't know who Lloyd Alexander is - and neither does anyone else. He may have been the James Watt to Tolkien's Stephenson, but when it comes to trains everyone is going to remember the latter. Whatever this Alexander did, it served as no more than a primer for the main course. He may have laid the groundwork, but Tolkien completed the job.

Wos's point notwithstanding - and I love both equally (I'm only really playing with this because I'm reading the Silmarillion and am gradually getting into its style) - I still at this point think that Tolkien's use of language surpasses Donaldson's, his imaginative framework is bigger, his actual story if taken simply on its own, surpasses Donaldson's.

I absolutely take on board Wayfriend's point that for Tolkien, TLOTR was itself a distraction - well, maybe not that, but still not really what he was himself truly interested in.......but this I think, if we are not careful, actually clouds the issue and reduces by comparison, the actual work itself in terms of its achievement when regarded from a stand-alone perspective. It looks smaller because we know that it occupies this marginal place in its creators thinking. But I say that this is the effect of say seeing the Eiger sitting next to Everest. It might look small in this context - but on it's own it's still frikkin huge. I believe that if Tolkien had sat down and written TLOTR without ever having put pen to paper in respect of the decades worth of prior work he had done in creating a universe for it to be born in, it would still surpass Donaldson's as a work of imaginative fiction. Donaldson scores well on characters, his creation of differing types of peoples and of course the Land itself - the main character of the story in reality ..........but there is something about the flow of Tolkien's work, the roll and sweep of it, the style shifts and heights of epic grandiure, that Donaldson never quite achieved, even at his best. Donaldson is good - very good - and I've of the two I've probably derived more pleasure from the Chrons than TLOTR, but I still think that in this case, the student never surpassed the work of the Master.

(As an aside, let's just put into context what Tolkien did. Saying you sat down and on your own created the English language - and then did it twice more. Then you created a universe for these languages to exist in, rich and complex complete with history and context for it's operations. Then you followed it up by writing a work of scale comparable to the Bible. And you did all of this not for a living, but as a simple hobby, a pleasant distraction from your main job as an academic of renown in one of the top universities of the world.........

How can one man do this. It beggars belief. It surpasses me.)

Peter - Black Cauldron series.

I'll check him out Sarge!

peter wrote:How can one man do this. It beggars belief.

He wasn't distracted by the Internet.

I seem to recall SRD stating in The Gradual Interview that LOTR made it possible for him to write The Chronicles.

I also have a private joke that The First Chronicles is what LOTR would have been had it been written by Dostoevsky.

DrPaul- That is a great private joke!
My main contact with Dostoevsky (iirc) is having read a short story of his that involved a man having a dream which went shockingly Donaldsonian* shockingly quickly.
Even if that were the ONLY story of his where the similarity is that strong- it would be enough!

Enjoying what you guys are saying.
Delighted to hear your experience reading The Silmarillion, peter!!


* Pretty sure he was both the dreamer and responsible for the moral ruin of an entire world. And very aggrieved and guilty.

Absolutely Linna; as I progress through the book I begin to become used to its style and find myself increasingly drawn in by the huge scope of the tale. I love the little foretells of what we will later experience in TLOTR, the background of Shelob in the horrendous Ungoliant, how the Balrog's came about, how Sauron began as the luitenant of Melkor/Morgroth. How much more would the latter more popularly appreciated work be appreciated when set in the context of the former. Damn! I'm taking myself into a re-read here and I've already got dozens of books in my reading pile!

(Quick note; Gandalf defeated a Balrog - I'll repeat that defeated.....a ....Balrog! Just how powerful was this man? Was he even a man?)

The Silmarillion eventually gets to Gandalf. I won't spoil it for you. Just remember his many names.