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.

[Boromir88]

There are a couple things Tolkien does that stands out from other authors that I've read.

At this current time, I'm actually not reading any Tolkien, I'm reading The Chronicles of Narnia (for the first time). I finished The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe and am about to start Prince Caspian. Now I enjoyed reading C.S. Lewis, but I just didn't get the same feel as when I read LOTR. Maybe it would have been better if I read it when I was a kid, but to me The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe just seemed childish. Before that, I read The Hobbit (for the first time), and though that's a book for "children" it really didn't seem childish. When I read LOTR, though it is a fantasy, it just seem real, and seems like something that's believable. The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe just didn't seem real.

There is this certain characteristic of a book called plausibility...does the story make sense, is the story believable? Not even believable in our own world, but believable within the book. When I read TLTWTW, in Narnia I just got a sense that anything can happen and certain things seem unbelievable, it's like Lewis' characters are superhumans and can withstand anything.

When I read LOTR, though there is "magic" in the stories, and certain characters seem unstoppable, everything and everyone has limits. NOTHING or NOONE is all-powerful/superhuman (besides Eru)...even the Ring can be defeated. Gandalf can't sit their and launch 50 fireballs, he gets tired, he gets physically worn down. Everything has limits. When I read The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe, I just didn't get that feeling of plausibility that LOTR has.

Another thing I think Tolkien works well with, and one of my biggest attractions to books (as well as movies) are the characters. Tolkien gives all of his characters a mind of their own. He reiterates it in a letter that I forget, I'll see if I can find it when he's talking about Treebeard, in that that's Treebeards opinion on why trolls were created "in mockery of ents" and that isn't necessarily the truth but Treebeard's own opinion. In Tolkien he gives each of his characters their own minds and their own personalities.

For example, I'm going to take Hama and Beregond. Both of whom are servants/guards of their lords. However, despite being guards, they aren't like the typical "guard of a lord" which are mindless robots that say "yes master." They are both able to judge for themselves what the right thing to do is. Though an order was made that Gandalf had to set aside his staff, Hama made up his own mind and through his own judgement let Gandalf in with his staff. Beregond I hope I really don't have to explain, he disobeys his lord, kills people just to save the Captain who he is so fond of. Everyone in Tolkien has a mind of their own and are able to make their own decisions...again not being mindless robots..."Yes lord."

Anwyay, those are the things that I think puts Tolkien above other authors I have read.

[narfforc]

One of things I find remarkable about The Works Of Tolkien, is their depth. Pick up LotR and turn to any page, and I am willing to bet, that most names of people or places have a history. They do not just appear, there is a link to something else somewhere. There are also mysteries of people or places mentioned, that we can only imagine and discuss on these very pages. The other houses of the Dwarflords, those not of Durins Line, the other Istari, there are so many more things we could have been told, and our hunger burns. I think for me also, I see LotR as one of those stories that could easily fit in the gap between Legend and Myth. It is almost semi-believeable, one would not be amazed if Arthur or CuCulainn appeared followed by Merlin and Angus Og. Many people on a subliminal level recognise this link to our own history of storytelling, and Tolkien has been rightly called The Last Bard. The story Tolkien has created is probably the last great story ever told, and as much as people try and imitate (pick the names yourself), the efforts are but weak copies in many cases. I called this A Never Ending Story because I believe it is, I have read countless stories of The Fourth Age, of obscure times and people, written by people like us for people like us (no harm in that). It is through us this story will continue and grow. To say that the works of Tolkien are engraved in my being is an understatement, I feel nothing like that for any other written word.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by narfforc

The story Tolkien has created is probably the last great story ever told, and as much as people try and imitate (pick the names yourself), the efforts are but weak copies in many cases. I called this A Never Ending Story because I believe it is, I have read countless stories of The Fourth Age, of obscure times and people, written by people like us for people like us (no harm in that). It is through us this story will continue and grow. To say that the works of Tolkien are engraved in my being is an understatement, I feel nothing like that for any other written word.

Oh my gosh, narfforc, for a moment there I thought you had LotR confused with that Biblical epic The Greatest Story Ever Told but then I realised you meant simply that it is the last great one written. I sure wouldn't think Tolkien would like any graven images made of his work.

[Anguirel]

Is anyone else getting a Tolkien, Tolkien, uber alles vibe from this thread??

Anschluss with Narnia!

[Child of the 7th Age]

A number of posters have made excellent statements about what they see in Tolkien that is outstanding or unique: believable characters, plausibility of plot and world, terrific plot, and appropriateness of language. I could second many of these points. Yet, for me, there is something more going on. Perhaps, Mythopoeia summed it up best. It isn't the characteristics that I see and admire in Tolkien that defines his importance as a writer. Rather it is the personal impact--intellectual, emotional, and imaginative--that those writings have had on me over the years. And it has, indeed, been many years!

I can name individual fantasy writers who made skillful use of language or others who do an excellent job with plotting. Yet, when you get right down to it, I can think of no other creator of myth who so hits me in the solar plexus as Tolkien. My reading of LotR and the wider Legendarium has always been tangled up with my search to find myself. With other fantasy writers, I am reading about someplace far away, a distant and exotic world that is very attractive and holds me spellbound for a given space of time. I set the book down, and the spell ends. With Tolkien, the characters and situations have a much more intimate meaning--they speak to my own personal situations and needs. Because of that, the impact of the writings linger long after I've turned the last page.

I grew up in a tight and loving working class family. My dad was a factory worker. It was a world with great depth, but also a very narrow world. I was searching for a way out. Like Samwise, I was chasing after Elves and Dragons in a culture that was fixed on meat and potatoes. I could identify with Sam and other characters in Lord of the Rings in a way that was immediate and personal. There were other times in life when I was going through periods of definition or struggle. And often in those situations I reread Tolkien and found some episode or character that spoke to me on a personal level. It wasn't just the surface action that attracted me: it was the values and meaning that framed and stood behind those actions. From year to year, my point of interest changed. Sometimes it was Tolkien's loving descriptions of the earth, the struggles that Frodo endured, or the implicit sprituality that shines through certain characters and their ethical choices. But always there was something worth looking at.

I have read a ton of fantasy over the years, starting in the mid-sixties. That was when the Ballentine series came out, along with Ace, Daw, and DelRey, the major providers of fantasy and sf. I've found many authors I've enjoyed to the hilt, but few have made as personal impact an impact as Tolkien. The one other fantasy author I would put in this category, and Cailin mentioned him earlier, is T.H. White and The Once and Future King. Interestingly, I recently ran across an interview with Shippey where he talks about his own affinity for White and how White and Tolkien were in some sense similar. Both authors were affected and repelled by the horrors of war in the 20th century, yet recognized the fact that the conditions we face in the world sometimes require good men to stand up and fight. In both White and Tolkien, I sense what difficult dilemmas the world sometimes presents to us and, as I get older, I gain greater appreciation of how these two authors managed to encapsulate this dilemma in the actions and choices of their characters.

[Anguirel]

I am completely with Child about The Once and Future King. However, while many people admire The Sword in the Stone most out of the TH White novels, I must admit to find it, with the posthumously published Book of Merlyn, not nearly as thrilling as the others. The Malory influence is less pervasive, the authorial pieces of fancifulness rather too numerous, the childishness avoiding any real sense of danger, the appearance of Robin Wood in retrospect rather annoying. (Though White's take on Kay's character is fascinating.)

The Queen of Air and Darkness, for me, was a real improvement. Battles, vast battles. O Scotland, Scotland. The appearance of the family I most enjoy reading of in White and Malory, the Orkney brothers, Gawaine, Gaheris, Agravaine and Mordred. And in their mother, Morgause, a character of spine-curdling beauty begging to be fleshed out. White described Gawaine as "a swine with a stroke of human decency". I would describe him as "my favourite figure in legend or literature".

In the Ill-Made Knight, we see an almost unique construction-the character of Chretien de Troyes' Lancelot modelled first in Malory's image, then in White's. The result is a Lancelot far more likeable than Malory's or Tennyson's, a truly self-doubting creature. The Candle in the Wind lays the blame for Arthur's downfall too heavily on the orkney's, but it is nonetheless incredibly tragic and moving.

So...yes, I would put White beside the completely dissimilar Tolkien. They also had this in common. Both left trails, irresistable to me, to wider mythologies; White to Malory's vast yet thoroughly readable, sometimes even touchingly personal, Le Morte D'Arthur; Tolkien of course to the Silmarillion. Devouring both of these, I was not alone in comparing the sons of Feanor to those of Lot and Morgause. I felt great sympathy for both families. I desperately wanted to see them redeemed, but knew I couldn't.

Couldn't with Tolkien anyway. But even Malory, great though he is, is just one slant, though indisputably the most comprehensive, on King Arthur. So was born my Gawain novel, working title Hawk of May till I dispiritedly discovered some American lady novelist had pinched it already. Expect it 2038 approx...

In conclusion, the greatest fantasy writer is Malory. Then Edmund Spenser. Then conceivably Tolkien/White...

[narfforc]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.