Kevin's Watch

I would guess that King, having been labeled the "schlock-master", wouldn't be so judgemental over other sucessful writers. Not his style.

My guess, having not seen the passage you refer to, is that he is explaining that the Tower books are his foray into fantasy.

OR as Brando once said..."It's all bullshit".

Hey Fiz, how are you doing man? In response to your comment on King being critical of Donaldson. I've read that King actually respects Donaldson as both an author and an artist. And as stated eariler, criticism isn't a very Kingly trait. I think he enjoyed the Covenant series. Well, that is all that comes to mind. Later Fiz, and welcome to the watch.

Thank you Fizban for your topic. (like the name btw and the ref!)

I'm not sure on Mr. King's stance on SRD, so i'll make a general observation on the topic.

I've always been a bit put off by some "tolkien purists" that ascribe all modern-day fantasy to "The Lord of The Rings" trilogy of novels. It's not so much that they do so but they usually attest that all these great authors are but pale shadows when compared to JRR. This always makes me incredibly pissed-off.

It shows some sort of arrogance and incredible stupidity. Who the heck do they think they are? If this was not a family forum I'd have some choice pejoratives i'd lash out with a sailor's finesse and cruelty atm.

IMHO Stephen R Donaldson's work is a breed apart and in many ways. His work is not for everyone. It deals with tormented characters (and in SRD's words "who do tormented things") which not everyone can be mature enough to stomach. It shoots off on a tangent that borders on the philosophic and can easily be seen to be detailed and specific in it's scope.
It forces it's readers to reassess their own views and even can change people's lives.

Saying all this here is redundant obviously, (as I sometimes am) and is something like "preaching to the converted" but this issue always gets me riled.

Tolkien v SRD .. next best thing to religion or politics as argument fodder. Prolly worse. Even the people who introduced me to SRD with fervent enthusiasm balked when i postulated that it might be a superior work. But whatever your tastes, and whatever the genre owes Tolkien collectively for getting it all going again, LotR isn't anywhere near as profound as TCoTC generally is for me. Tolkiens work in building the lanuages and universe are second to none for that, as he was uniquely qualified to achieve, but it's not like with like. For all that technical detail, the characters in those stories are far less real to me than those who inhabit the Land.. No one underplays what JRR contributed in recreating/resurrecting the entire genre.. would we be talking about any of these other authors if he hadn't? But the depth and realism SRD brought to it put it IMHO on a higher plane. I enjoyed LotR immensely and marveled at the imaginitive feat. But it wont change my life or the way i look at the world. TC does, at every reading. As so many others have said, so real are the books.. so searching of the reader.. that we find ourselves drawing different meanings and lessons even from the same events at different places in time. The books are like my Hajj. A time to reconnect and see how much i've changed inbetween time. And always a welcome pleasure.

Tolkien's work has been seen as the beginning of the genre, which may or may not be true. But the one thing IT IS...is a WWII allegory. As such it is prone to archetypical characterizations, etc. Plus all the characters exist williningly within the context of their lives. What makes TC so interesting is his disbelief which grows slowly to love.

I loved JJR T, but like the rest of us, FEEL more for TC and SRD.

To be fair, Fiz...there is plenty that is similar between TC and LOTR...including the presence of a powerful ring. But for one to call it an out and out rip off is to admit never having read TC.

TC is so raw as a character, and mhoram has an instrinsic nobility that Strider can't touch.

What sets TC apart is the characters and the context, AND the marriage of fantasy to "our" world where innocence has no power.

Well, I'm getting out of here quickly--some of the nastiest "altercations" at this site always seem to happen in any (dreaded) SRD/JRR comparision thread. Gunslinger please edit the word you used above you can replace it

Spoiler

w/BS, if you'd like

I mean, sure he's great, he's epic, he created something wonderful that I can go back to from tiem to time. But people treat his work as if it's gospel and to counter it or challenge it is insane. Hmmurumf...

I understand how you feel, Fizban, but IMO Tolkien is sort of a "gospel"...I mean, most of Western Civilization is based on a book. The Gospels in the Bible, with their archetypal storyline, laid the foundation for the literary culture of half the world. I'm not trying to downplay the significance of the Ancient Greeks, btw...but most literature in English is so profoundly influenced by the Judeo-Christian mythos, and the Gospels in particular, that you can't extract the underlying philosophy without destroying the work.

In the same way, Tolkien might actually be a sort of gospel--without LoTR, we wouldn't have The Land, or SoIF, or Neverness (for danlo), or whatever your alternate-world-of-choice might be. Tolkien opened up possibilities of world-invention that didn't exist before. So in that way, the authors that have come after him all rely on his work. Take Tolkien out of the equation, and you don't have a post-war literary culture that embraced alternate-world-building.

It's not that SRD et al. are derivative. It's that as modern fantastists, they work and write and sweat blood in a space that Tolkien created.

That's my Tolkien-as-gospel theory. Don't get me started on the Old Testament. Lord Dunsany as Abraham..or HG Wells? ER Eddison as Moses? Where does George Orwell fit in?or Mervyn Peake?...Hmmmmm.....

Don't forget William Morris!

A certain Lord Mhoram might have something to say about CS Lewis.
He & JRRT were friends, & colleagues, if I recall correctly.

Tolkien really brought fantasy "to the masses", but is not the first originator of modern fantasy & surely he developed his ideas from others influences, I would think.

Nice analogy Myste, works for me

Lament wrote: I've always been a bit put off by some "tolkien purists" that ascribe all modern-day fantasy to "The Lord of The Rings" trilogy of novels. It's not so much that they do so but they usually attest that all these great authors are but pale shadows when compared to JRR. This always makes me incredibly pissed-off.

It shows some sort of arrogance and incredible stupidity. Who the heck do they think they are?

I stand behind your words, Lament. This is why I don't waste my breath mentioning SRD to some friends of mine who are Tolkien fans. I just don't see the point.

Don't forget William Morris!

Maybe William Morris is Abraham, since he was an early progenitor....

A certain Lord Mhoram might have something to say about CS Lewis. He & JRRT were friends, & colleagues, if I recall correctly.

They were friends--part of a group called The Inklings that met at The Eagle & Child (aka "Bird & Baby") pub in Oxford. I decree that CS Lewis shall be John the Baptist.

Nice analogy Myste, works for me

Thanks, kaseryn

Hey bro (Talking hat).

I dont believe its a knock really, just a generalization. King cant not count all of Donalsons and Brooks books are a copy off of Tolkien. The Sword of Shannara most definitely was a carbon copy story, but it had its reasons, del rey wanted to get terrys name out, and a easy way to do that was to ride the footails of the best out there Tolkien. I really dont see the comparsion of hobbits and Covenant? To that i say BULLSHIT as someone said above.
Cail