Tolkien over others - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

narfforc · 01-25-2006, 11:59 AM

It has ever been difficult for me to place my love of all things Arthurian, behind that of Tolkien. I came to read Tolkien after reading childrens books on Arthur ie Roger Lancelyn Green. My interest has grown apace, until I have well over fifty books on the subject of Arthur. I agree with Anguirel, that Malory is a great story teller (one of the best), yet he had source material, on which he expanded. Tolkien took a blueprint and wrote his own story. I am sorry to hear of your Hawk of May story, I have a copy of the Gillian Bradshaw book, and on the back it reads: WILL APPEAL TO THOSE WHO HAVE ENJOYED TOLKIEN'S WORKS. Let me say it did.

P.S Sorry Bethberry but I don't see the Bible as the Greatest Story Ever Told. It is The Greatest Myth Ever Invented.

Anguirel · 01-25-2006, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by narfforc

I am sorry to hear of your Hawk of May story, I have a copy of the Gillian Bradshaw book...

Oh, it'll still happen. Eventually. I just need a new title. I'm planning to change it to Mayhawk (lame) or The Skull at Dover (slightly depressing) or something else...

Lalwendë · 01-26-2006, 06:36 AM

I'm not a particular fan of fantasy. There I've said it.

But what this actually means is that I find most of it pales in comparison to Tolkien; I have read a fair amount of other fantasy fiction and I'd rate some of it in my ever-changing mental list of favourite books, but a lot of it I either find tedious or I forget about it soon after reading as it doesn't have the 'substance' to affect me above the level of simple entertainment. For me there really is nothing like Tolkien, his work is unique. Other work which comes under the banner of fantasy which I also love tends to have this unique quality - Gormenghast, His Dark Materials and Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell.

I do find the sense of 'magic' or of being in another world in almost any kind of fiction if it is good enough; an amazing book does not have to possess the traditional hallmarks of fantasy for it to have that effect on me. For example, I can be reading Return of the Native and be transported to 19th century Dorset; it might as well be fantasy because this too is some place I am never going to be able to physically visit.

Perhaps one of the reasons that Tolkien's work grabs me where other fantasy does not is that it is not formulaic, it is never stupid, and it is honest. The story of Middle-earth ends right where it needs to so it is not tedious. The story, the most important thing, has a good plot. The characters are not stereotypical, nor are they patronisingly forced to be modern. And there is depth, enough left raw around the edges to allow the imagination to roam.

Tolkien's work is also incredibly modern. Strange, for a world which is filled with archaic references to swords and wizards and ladies in flowing gowns. If I tried to write the same I'm sure it would end up seeming as though I'd tried to force my characters into such a world - rather like the way costume dramas always age badly, reflecting more of the fashions of the day than any kind of period 'authenticity' - in fact those which try to be the most 'authentic' funnily enough seem to be those which date most badly! Usually the hairstyles....

Happily, Tolkien's world has lots of seemingly out of place things such as umbrellas and Hobbits in 18th century garb and taters and women who go off to war. If he had tried to be authentically antiquarian then Eowyn would have been locked into her chastity belt and it might have all grown a bit tedious. Maybe this is why I find Tolkien more satisfying; he allowed this world to develop on its own instead of trying to recreate any period in history which is what I find so many other fantasy writers doing.

And that's only touching the surface of why Tolkien's better than the rest!

Folwren · 02-07-2006, 12:51 PM

Er...now...I haven't got anythng fantastical to say without repeating things that other people have said already, but I can't help sticking up for Lewis, at least.

To begin with, I'll have to say I haven't read much fantasy other than Lewis and Tolkien. There have been a few random books here and there, but nothing great, and absolutely nothing that came near to being comparable to the LotR and Lewis's Narnia.

I would rather read Tolkien over almost every other fantasy writer because his books carry so much, oh what're the words?. . .power and truth in them. And the contain layer upon layer of the histories and languages that he's developed and poured into his stories. Now, about that power and truth - he doesn't preach to you. No, no, on the contrary, if you didn't want to see Christianity in the books, you wouldn't have to. But you couldn't help seeing the stark difference between good and evil. Some people say that the LotR is bad because it's full of Magic, well. . .I think it's arguable to say that the good guys never use magic.
Other writers? What scruples do they have against the good guys using mysical powers, just as strong if not stronger than the bad guys? What makes the bad people bad, and the good people good? In some cases (as in Harry Potter), the case is questionable. . .

There is one reason where I prefer Tolkien over other Fantasy writers. Another is because of the depth of each and everyone of his characters, depending on their part in the story. You look at the LotR, or the Sil., and you'll see that hardly any one character out of the very many in the story, stays the same that he or she began. There is always developement, either towards the good or the bad.

With all this said (and I could go on longer), I'd still say Lewis is the better writer, and I'd prefer to read him more often and re-read his works more than Tolkien's. The simple fact is, Lewis is the superior writer, in the writing sense. He is concise and easy to understand, providing you know the material you're reading. His Till We Have Faces, though well written and easily understood as a story, is, all the same, uncommonly difficult to actually understand. He can get his characters developed and his story told in seventy pages. And yet those seventy pages are so full of things that after reading it time and time again, I am, for one, still discovering more and more of every one of his Chronicles of Narnia books. Yes, they may appear, at first, childish and simple, but they're not. Like Tolkien's works, there are layers and layers that you can peel back and keep peeling back. In a different sense, perhaps. His world of Narnia is not necessarily as well developed, there are not multiple languages, and yet there is history there, and, even more important than that, there is an underlying truth and value that we as indivuals can learn from.
Eh, that sounds silly, but I think it's true.

And that all mainly has to do with Narnia itself. There are mutliple other books of his, fiction and non-fiction, that could be gone into great detail about, but I won't.

So, Tolkien over others. . .perhaps yes. But not Tolkien over Lewis.

-- Folwren

Gothmog · 02-07-2006, 01:36 PM

Funny you would post this, Folwren, as I too was thinking of Lewis and wanted to comment him. I'm re-reading Narnia right now, and I haven't read them for many years. And I must say I'm a bit disappointed. I try to tell myself that the Chronicles were written as a children's book, but it doesn't help much.

The first thing is the language. One of the things that I like with Tolkien's books is the language. It's not always easy to understand and it can be vague and sometimes tiring. But it fits the story so well! An epic tale like that needs a language as advanced as Tolkiens, and the fact that is seem a bit out of time makes it even more fitting. It might be that the Swedish translation of the Chronicles isn't as good as it should be (and the Swedish version is all I have), but I don't the language used by Lewis to be as intriguing or compelling as Tolkiens. This is a minor problem but still...

The next thing is the depth. This is one of the qualities that I find most interesting in LotR. Every song and tale has it's own history and background and every character has it's specific story. The world of ME is so deep that no-one has yet touched the bottom. Here we are, week after week, months after months, discussing this world and it's surroundings. This is unique for the world of Tolkien. When I read about Narnia it feels too shallow and one-dimensional. Of course there's both a moral and a religious message (a message that almost feels too obvious, no-one can miss the parallel), but that's not the problem. The problem is that everything is too simple. Everything solves itself without explaining how or why, or giving you anything to build your own theories of.

Quote:

Yes, they may appear, at first, childish and simple, but they're not. Like Tolkien's works, there are layers and layers that you can peel back and keep peeling back. In a different sense, perhaps. His world of Narnia is not necessarily as well developed, there are not multiple languages, and yet there is history there, and, even more important than that, there is an underlying truth and value that we as indivuals can learn from.

Maybe I'm not a good enough peeler, but those underlying truths and values (that of course is important) does not produce enough layers for me.

I must admit that I haven't read any other books by C.S. Lewis that the 7 about Narnia so I won't say anything about him as an author. And I do remember that they were written for children and I did enjoy them as a child. But as an adult (or at least a bit older

) I don't find them as interesting as Tolkien. He is still nr. 1 for me, except when it comes to creating characters that I can relate to. For characters I put Eddings at the throne, but I've already written that in my previous post in this thread...

Hope I made some sort of sense. It's not as easy as it seems to explain one's thoughts like this

Folwren · 02-09-2006, 09:06 AM

If you think Lewis is a children's writer simply because you imagine that the Chronicles of Narnia are only good for childrens' readings, read Till We Have Faces.

-- Folwren

Gothmog · 02-09-2006, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Folwren

If you think Lewis is a children's writer simply because you imagine that the Chronicles of Narnia are only good for childrens' readings, read Till We Have Faces.

-- Folwren

I do not think that Lewis is a children's writer, only that the Chronicles are children's books. And there's nothing wrong with writing children's books. I'm just a bit disappointed because I remembered them as less...childish.

Quote:

I must admit that I haven't read any other books by C.S. Lewis that the 7 about Narnia so I won't say anything about him as an author. And I do remember that they were written for children and I did enjoy them as a child.

You see?

But thank you for the tip! I'll read it if I can give myself the time.

01-25-2006, 11:59 AM	#1
narfforc Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Muddy-earth Posts: 1,297	It has ever been difficult for me to place my love of all things Arthurian, behind that of Tolkien. I came to read Tolkien after reading childrens books on Arthur ie Roger Lancelyn Green. My interest has grown apace, until I have well over fifty books on the subject of Arthur. I agree with Anguirel, that Malory is a great story teller (one of the best), yet he had source material, on which he expanded. Tolkien took a blueprint and wrote his own story. I am sorry to hear of your Hawk of May story, I have a copy of the Gillian Bradshaw book, and on the back it reads: WILL APPEAL TO THOSE WHO HAVE ENJOYED TOLKIEN'S WORKS. Let me say it did. P.S Sorry Bethberry but I don't see the Bible as the Greatest Story Ever Told. It is The Greatest Myth Ever Invented. Last edited by narfforc; 01-25-2006 at 12:02 PM.

01-26-2006, 06:36 AM	#3
Lalwendë A Mere Boggart Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: under the bed Posts: 4,737	I'm not a particular fan of fantasy. There I've said it. But what this actually means is that I find most of it pales in comparison to Tolkien; I have read a fair amount of other fantasy fiction and I'd rate some of it in my ever-changing mental list of favourite books, but a lot of it I either find tedious or I forget about it soon after reading as it doesn't have the 'substance' to affect me above the level of simple entertainment. For me there really is nothing like Tolkien, his work is unique. Other work which comes under the banner of fantasy which I also love tends to have this unique quality - Gormenghast, His Dark Materials and Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell. I do find the sense of 'magic' or of being in another world in almost any kind of fiction if it is good enough; an amazing book does not have to possess the traditional hallmarks of fantasy for it to have that effect on me. For example, I can be reading Return of the Native and be transported to 19th century Dorset; it might as well be fantasy because this too is some place I am never going to be able to physically visit. Perhaps one of the reasons that Tolkien's work grabs me where other fantasy does not is that it is not formulaic, it is never stupid, and it is honest. The story of Middle-earth ends right where it needs to so it is not tedious. The story, the most important thing, has a good plot. The characters are not stereotypical, nor are they patronisingly forced to be modern. And there is depth, enough left raw around the edges to allow the imagination to roam. Tolkien's work is also incredibly modern. Strange, for a world which is filled with archaic references to swords and wizards and ladies in flowing gowns. If I tried to write the same I'm sure it would end up seeming as though I'd tried to force my characters into such a world - rather like the way costume dramas always age badly, reflecting more of the fashions of the day than any kind of period 'authenticity' - in fact those which try to be the most 'authentic' funnily enough seem to be those which date most badly! Usually the hairstyles.... Happily, Tolkien's world has lots of seemingly out of place things such as umbrellas and Hobbits in 18th century garb and taters and women who go off to war. If he had tried to be authentically antiquarian then Eowyn would have been locked into her chastity belt and it might have all grown a bit tedious. Maybe this is why I find Tolkien more satisfying; he allowed this world to develop on its own instead of trying to recreate any period in history which is what I find so many other fantasy writers doing. And that's only touching the surface of why Tolkien's better than the rest! __________________ Gordon's alive!

02-07-2006, 12:51 PM	#4
Folwren Messenger of Hope Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: In a tiny, insignificant little town in one of the many States. Posts: 5,076	Er...now...I haven't got anythng fantastical to say without repeating things that other people have said already, but I can't help sticking up for Lewis, at least. To begin with, I'll have to say I haven't read much fantasy other than Lewis and Tolkien. There have been a few random books here and there, but nothing great, and absolutely nothing that came near to being comparable to the LotR and Lewis's Narnia. I would rather read Tolkien over almost every other fantasy writer because his books carry so much, oh what're the words?. . .power and truth in them. And the contain layer upon layer of the histories and languages that he's developed and poured into his stories. Now, about that power and truth - he doesn't preach to you. No, no, on the contrary, if you didn't want to see Christianity in the books, you wouldn't have to. But you couldn't help seeing the stark difference between good and evil. Some people say that the LotR is bad because it's full of Magic, well. . .I think it's arguable to say that the good guys never use magic. Other writers? What scruples do they have against the good guys using mysical powers, just as strong if not stronger than the bad guys? What makes the bad people bad, and the good people good? In some cases (as in Harry Potter), the case is questionable. . . There is one reason where I prefer Tolkien over other Fantasy writers. Another is because of the depth of each and everyone of his characters, depending on their part in the story. You look at the LotR, or the Sil., and you'll see that hardly any one character out of the very many in the story, stays the same that he or she began. There is always developement, either towards the good or the bad. With all this said (and I could go on longer), I'd still say Lewis is the better writer, and I'd prefer to read him more often and re-read his works more than Tolkien's. The simple fact is, Lewis is the superior writer, in the writing sense. He is concise and easy to understand, providing you know the material you're reading. His Till We Have Faces, though well written and easily understood as a story, is, all the same, uncommonly difficult to actually understand. He can get his characters developed and his story told in seventy pages. And yet those seventy pages are so full of things that after reading it time and time again, I am, for one, still discovering more and more of every one of his Chronicles of Narnia books. Yes, they may appear, at first, childish and simple, but they're not. Like Tolkien's works, there are layers and layers that you can peel back and keep peeling back. In a different sense, perhaps. His world of Narnia is not necessarily as well developed, there are not multiple languages, and yet there is history there, and, even more important than that, there is an underlying truth and value that we as indivuals can learn from. Eh, that sounds silly, but I think it's true. And that all mainly has to do with Narnia itself. There are mutliple other books of his, fiction and non-fiction, that could be gone into great detail about, but I won't. So, Tolkien over others. . .perhaps yes. But not Tolkien over Lewis. -- Folwren __________________ A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading. - C.S. Lewis

02-09-2006, 09:06 AM	#6
Folwren Messenger of Hope Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: In a tiny, insignificant little town in one of the many States. Posts: 5,076	If you think Lewis is a children's writer simply because you imagine that the Chronicles of Narnia are only good for childrens' readings, read Till We Have Faces. -- Folwren __________________ A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading. - C.S. Lewis