What fantasy book have you read that gave you the same 'feel' LotR?

[Anguirel]

Definitely not. On the other hand few books do, or should, produce in entirety the same feelings as other books

There are some very interesting things Martin actually does better than Tolkien - politics etc - but in all artistic fields he trails

[Nogrod]

Agreeing with Anguirel about Martin doing "politics etc" better I'd like to add that there is a clear difference of the culture and "age" he writes - and a different tradition of fantasy-writing (which was more or less non-existent by the time of Tolkien).

Martin looks refreshing in many fronts and that I think makes him good today. And I do agree also on the fact that he lacks some of the artistic stuff, finesse, detail, poetry...

But he doesn't arouse the same or similar feelings. Just because of the differences of time and tradition. And continuing from where Ang led us; who would want to experience the very same in the first place?

[Galadriel]

Originally Posted by Anguirel

Definitely not. On the other hand few books do, or should, produce in entirety the same feelings as other books

You're right; I should have said a 'similar' feel in the first place, but the hidden question was 'was any book able to satisfy you as much?'

[Thinlómien]

Having been rather obsessed by George R. R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire series recently I feel like adding my two cents. Martin definitely gives a totally different feel than Tolkien, yet in some ways he is closer to Tolkien than most contemporary fantasy writers. It is because of the depth and the scale of his creation, and how the world feels so very real. True, he doesn't have Tolkien's skill and interest in linguistics (which is something he seems to like to repeat in interviews) or mythological depth, but I find his cities, families, people, institutions, society and religion exceptionally well thought of. Like Ang and Nog have said, he does do some stuff better than Tolkien - if we can compare them, after all, their styles are completely different although both fall under the genre of fantasy.

As for who creates a similar feeling as Tolkien, I have two names in mind although for very different reasons. Ursula Le Guin, a genius in her own right, is the only one who can rival (and don't kill me, maybe surpass) Tolkien in writing grand-scale bittersweet mythological fantasy that you simply cannot forget and have to love. Like Tolkien, she has the gift of combining legendary and philosophical stuff with a good plot and interesting characters and balancing with it neatly without making it too shallow or alternatively pompously boring. Suffice to say, I admire her greatly.

The one who can reach any kind of Tolkieny feeling in a very different way is Guy Gavriel Kay. He helped Christopher Tolkien with constructing the Silmarillion and you can see how deep he is in the Tolkienian mythology if you read his earliest novels, The Fionavar Tapestry trilogy. He doesn't really add anything new though, just recycles some of the coolest ideas from the Silmarillion alongside with more epic fantasy stuff and even King Arthur. I think The Fionavar Tapestry is slightly over the top and it would be very easy to criticise it, yet it still is a very good series, mostly thanks to Kay's touchingly epic writing style and his beautiful language. (I have to say though that I prefer his latter novels.) Those two things are actually why Kay is in a way closest to Tolkien in the contemporary fantasist: his writing is sometimes like reading a poem, and when he writes epic, it is very epic à la Rohan had come at last.

[McCaber]

I know it's not fantasy at all, but I get a lot of analogous vibes from Frank Herbert's Dune. At least from the first four volumes of that series.

[Snowdog]

As far as engrossing me into the world that is made, the only other fantasy book series to ever do that to me other than Tolkien was Glen Cook's Black Company series. The writing is nothing like each other, for one is smooth and eloquent, while the other is rough and direct. But I got involved in the story and the characters of botk much to the same degree..

[Aganzir]

Originally Posted by Anguirel

Ah the Orkney Faction, the only clan who can compare with the sons of Feanor; and I've always been in love with Morgause

When I first read The Once & Future King earlier this year, I couldn't get over how much they reminded me of clan Fëanor.

I agree with Morth though; it does have a similar feel to LOTR.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

I am currently reading The Fionavar Tapestry by Guy Gavriel Kay, and seconding Lommy (who, as it happens, recommended the book to me), I must say for myself that if there was ever an author who gave the feel at least a bit similar to Tolkien, it is Guy Gavriel Kay in The Fionavar Tapestry (I have read other book by him before, but it was very different, most of his other books are the sort of "history-inspired fantasy"). But the Fionavar Tapestry is unbelievably similar, something between Silmarillion and LotR. I guess it has a lot to do with the fact that GGK helped Christopher Tolkien with the revisions of the original Sil. But I really, really recommend it - after just reading the first volume. It has the sort of "old fantasy world" with good vs. evil, but not just like some random Dungeons and Dragons-style thing, but really, very much like LotR/Sil. And there are the themes and feelings which one generally associates with LotR and Sil, too. Besides, it is incredibly epic, almost over the top, but that makes it only good. I am glad I overcame my disbelief when I heard the plot summary - don't trust first impression. It is really worth reading it all. And once you are halfway through, you can't get away from it anymore.

And let me underline once again. I have never, ever encountered anything that touches Tolkien in the same way. Everything else is either too superficial (all the general Dungeons and Dragons stuff, or even things like Raymond E. Feist), too 'grimly realistic' (Martin), too naive (Eragon), or simply lacks the depth.

Not to say it doesn't have flaws, and there is obviously still something it lacks in regards to Tolkien, but it gets as close as one can. The semi-naive approach (since it was apparently GGK's first book) at times is counterweighted by the "deep moments" - which come mostly later in the book, but... they totally make up for it.