Tolkien over others

[daeron]

Discuss what makes Tolkien's a better writer over others.

I've read the works of David eddings and read a few chapters of WOT. I found neither as good or compelling to read ( and re-read) as the works of Tolkien's.
I have never been able to exactly realise what makes me prefer Tolkien over the rest. Anyway, I tried a few analysis procedures and came out with a few points for Tolkien and against others.

Names: Tolkien's character and place names have a certain grandeur to them that other authors are somehow not able to manage ( or is this just my prejudice). I should accept that Eddings does manage a decent set of names, but Tolkien with is background structure of Elvish for names gives them more meaning (Gilgalad=starlight, etc.). I hate names which are words with a 'w' and an 'x' thrown in like Wrostrovix, or as Jordan does ( he himself said) modify baby names by adding a couple more letters.

Language: Most authors use contemporary English in their works which does not suit the settings of a historical fantasy. I don't mean you have to use thees and thous throughout which would make any reader throw away the book but you can make the language more serene and respectable like Tolkien does.

A grandeur setting: This is one place where Tolkien scores way over others. Eddings has most of his plot over dry deserts or in crowded market places. Other landscapes hardly feature and no description is given which makes it tough to imagine. Tolkien's works present a good description that brings the scene in front of your eyes as if you were there yourself, and yet manages not to drone on for pages boring the reader. (12 books of WOT!! I don't need that much description).
Rivendell, Rohan, Gondor and Lothlorien are each grand but yet each so different.

And last but not least, A terrific plot full of details: None of the others manage this well. It's either farm boy becomes king and kills a villan ( or god), or too much detail and diversion dragging on for 12 books. Apparently people who kill god's can do so without any fear, without going through any hardships (except long treks), with an accidental thrust of the sword and no consequences. And if there is anything that ruins a epic plot (atleast for me), it is the nagging adolescent behaviour in regards to love, sex and relationships. You don't have to bore me each time they hold hands, with hundreds of scenes where they cry like typical teenagers over love matters. If I need that I'll read Harry Potter.

Well, that's my list. ( or those which have struck me till date).
If you have anything to add or contradict, do so. If you have anything against Tolkien and for others, please do point out. Suggest a few good High fantasy novels also. ( I love the genre)

[Beleg]

I've read few books and at first I think it's the style (and the spirit) that I disliked. Knowing that Tolkien's work is a work of an entire life, when you compare the writings of author who edit three books a year, you can understand that the style is different.

I haven't finished the Sovereign Stone Trilogy by Weiss and Hickman. It's entertaining, but I'm not fond of it. The descriptions are concise and there is no emotion when I read the books. I think Tolkien's work is epic because you feel that you're in Middle-Earth. He was never satisfied of his works, all the time editing the texts. He put his spirit in his books, and you feel it, everything is so well made and weaved that you believe in what is happening in the story.

I've never read Eddings' stuff. A friend of mine has quite a load of books from this author, but I never wanted to read them.
I have enough to read with Tolkien, because when I finish a book, I just want to start it again (for lot of reasons, one of them is that I've already forgotten lot of stuff). For the Sovereign Stone Trilogy, nothing to remember, the plot is ok but...

Only Tolkien did it: tell a story from the beginning, from the creation of his own world. A book, even as massive as the Farseer Trilogy, is far less interesting. There is nothing to study in it. Tolkien's work is admirable for that, there is always something to discover because it is a real mythology he created, and a world based on that can only be credible.

[ohtatyaro]

It seems real. I mean I don't doubt reading others that what they have written is fiction. With Tolkien it is not hard to think there really was Aragorn, and Rivendell and so on.

[Cailín]

Discuss what makes Tolkien's a better writer over others.

I've read the works of David eddings and read a few chapters of WOT. I found neither as good or compelling to read ( and re-read) as the works of Tolkien's.

I understand what you mean here, but can you honestly analyze and discuss why Tolkien is a better writer after having only read two other fantasy works (and by writers I for one don't hold in high esteem)?

It's all a matter of personal preference anyway. The things you list are valid points, but I find Jack Vance's names very appealing as well and I love the language use of T.H. White almost as much as I love Tolkien's. Though Tolkien probably has created the most detailed world and no one has yet equaled the attention he gave to history and languages, George Martin is another writer who really manages to make a world both rich in wonder and very believable at the same time. Tolkien might have been one of the first who used the plot of an innocent little farmer's boy (because that's basically what Frodo is as well) who - through some harsh twist of fate - has to save the world, but it is not an original idea either. So I guess the question should really be why do you like Tolkien more?

I'd personally recommend all the authors I have mentioned above, by the way.

[Gothmog]

It's somewhat unfair to compare the work of Tolkien with anything else. No-one comes close to his achievements!

I find myself drawn into a world described beautifully and detailed. A world where all the stories is connected and where there is an explanation behind most things. There is no other world ever created that is as complete as the world of Tolkien. There's not only one language, there's at least two (Quenya and Sindar) created specially for Middle Earth. Plus there's fragments of Adunaic, Dwarven speech, the toungue of Rohirrim and the dark language of Mordor. And that's only one example of the diversity and wealth of details in this world.

There's a complete story of creation, a well developed mythology with "gods" at least as living as the roman or norse. And the history, from the creation to the War of the Ring, is almost as comprehensive as the history of our real world. As soon as a character in LotR mentions an old legend or hero, or even sings a song, there's a story behind it. Aragorn isn't thinking Beren and Luthien up, they're real and there's a story as complicated and rich as any legend in our world. If an elf sings about events in some distant land and time, it's all there in Silmarillion, or UT, or BolT or.... That immense and thrilling world leaves me wanting more and more. One can't get enough! And that's why were all here, to get more of this fantastic world that we all share. No other writer can challenge Tolkien on that point, creating a world that feels more real than my own history.

But I really enjoy Eddings too! He succeeds in a thing Tolkien does not (criticizing prof T? Unbelieveable! Hope you can forgive me sometime) and that is making his characters personal. Tolkien's story (-ies) is an epic one and nothing beats it's complexity. But the characters feel a bit unpersonal, at least according to me. But they do not have to be personal, it's not that kind of story. Sure, you're worried the hobbits are in danger, and sure you can feel the love between Sam and Frodo but it still feels distant.

Eddings' characters on the other hand feels like a group of close friends. I can't resist to smile when Silk makes a joke, or feel the embarrassment of Garion in some situations, or the strange love between Belgarath and Polgara etc... When I finish the books it feels like I've lost contact with some of my dearest friends. And yes, it's sad when LotR ends too, but not in the same way. Even my sister, who is not interested in fantasy at all, have read The Belgariad with much enthusiasm.

I have to say that I enjoy the two book series about Belgarion more than those of Sparhawk, so the views above concern mainly those books.

WOW, that became one long post, even if it wasn't my intentions. A little defence for Edding, but in no way any hard critic of Tolkien, whom I still consider number 1. Nothing can compare to his work, even if I enjoy the personal touch of Eddings' characters.

J. R. R. Tolkien is more than just a philologist and a fantasy writer.
To be perfectly honest with you, my fellow Barrow-Downers, he is like a father to me.
Despite the fact that I was born fourteen years after his death, I somehow feel that he is really here, teaching me the lore of life. I have never really understood the majesty of Sub-creation till after I came across him. As a devoted æsthete myself, I support his æsthetic and religious wisdom - his profound love for Art.
His way of expressing it is simply unmatched.

The moment I started reading The Lord of the Rings some years ago, I felt a revelation - something eerie stirred within my mind and heart, telling me that something remarkable is come.
After completing the Appendices, I longed for the events of the First Age. So not long afterwards, I received The Silmarillion. And my love-affair with Fantasy Literature shone in full glory, like the light of Telperion and Laurelin. And my primary hobby shifted from Drawing (which is now my secondary activity) to Writing.
He is the reason for the Fairy-stories I am working on.

After The Silmarillion, I managed to gather almost everything involving Tolkien. The books, the essays and the letters, I have read them all; and I say proudly that John Ronald Reuel Tolkien is an example I follow, and will continue to follow.