[anomander stark]

Which is better lotr or tmbotf?

when i say better i do not mean which is better written or critically aclaimed, i just mean which amongst these books u enjoyed more.

for me its TMBOTF.

[Hocknose]

I don't think its possible (well for me to say which one is better) as they are both a product of their time.

LoTR is without doubt one of the definitive classics and without it a lot of modern fantasy would never have been written. It holds a special place in a lot people's hearts as it was the first truly epic fantasy story that they read, and also what got them into the genre in the first place.

Malazan is very, very different from LoTR but is an amazing series in its own right.

I don't think imo that you should compare them to say which one is better and just enjoy them for what they are...

[Silk]

In my experience it is very much a what is your taste decision.

To me LOTR was not the easiest of series to read in my opinion but others find it an immense and almost must read if you are into the fantasy realms and if you like Dwarves and Elves and other common fantasy races using the now worn out (but was original in its day and was the precursor i guess to) unknown x finds artifact y and heads off to save the world with a party of Uber Warriors/Mages/Elves/Dwarves etc.

[worry]

You might wanna have this moved out of the GotM section, since it's about the whole series.

[Primateus]

I'm gonna go with MBotF because LotR made me sleepy and bored...

[anomander stark]

 Hocknose, on 10 November 2011 - 09:23 AM, said:

I don't think its possible (well for me to say which one is better) as they are both a product of their time.

LoTR is without doubt one of the definitive classics and without it a lot of modern fantasy would never have been written. It holds a special place in a lot people's hearts as it was the first truly epic fantasy story that they read, and also what got them into the genre in the first place.

Malazan is very, very different from LoTR but is an amazing series in its own right.

I don't think imo that you should compare them to say which one is better and just enjoy them for what they are...

As i already mentioned, do not bother yourself with the fact that lotr started fantasy genre and is loved by many. i just want to know which u enjoyed more.

if u r still not able to make up ur mind then think like this, what will u do if someone tells u that he will 'delet' every memory, every emotion u have regarding one of the book and he tells u to chose one book's memories.



Ps- ignore my mistakes in the language, i m indian and have learned eng as my 3rd lang.

[Silk]

my answer would be to delete all knowlege of LOTR over MBOTF.... but thats a personal viewpoint as I find Tolkien's works to be boring and tiresome.

[JLV]

I think you'll find most people on this forum like Malazan better.

I know I do. I'm not sure if it's because of all the terrible lord of the rings clones that I read in middleschool, but I can't read the books anymore.

[Tattersail_]

I read LotR once, I could never read it again. It was a great read but that's it. I could re read it. I've read the Malazan Series 5 or 6 times now and I will read it again. A guy in work is reading LotR now and I promised him a better read when he's finished. I'll lend him GotM and he'll understand.

[Whiskey Bass]

i agree with Hocknose

also


LotR was a truly amazing, mind expanding trilogy of books when i was 10 back in '82. i then found the Silmarilion and the Book of Lost tales 1 and 2 and as a whole i think they were unparalleled, for a very long time.

30 years down the line and i think SE and ICE have created something just as special, (i hope, just getting into TCG now)

but i wonder if people will still be reading and talking about TMBotF 57 years time, i doubt i'll be here to see it like

[King-of-Chains]

To say that we should not compare them in a literary sense is, quite frankly, to defeat the purpose of comparrison. As Hocknose has stated they are products of their own times, however Tolkien's work has lasted through decades, while Erikson has just completed, what I believe we can all agree, may very well be the next Lord of the Rings. However, we are faced with a problem. Tolkien wrote his work in a time where fantasy was not as wide spread, and thus he is, essentially (though not according to experts) the father of modern fantasy. Erikson is a byproduct of this, in fact Erikson is a byproduct of many writers, as he himself has admitted in interviews. This means that Erikson may have written an epic that will not stand the test of time the same way Lord of the Rings simply because, in so many ways it is unoriginal in concept, whereas Lord of the Rings is The Original fantasy epic of modern times. So if we are to compare these works simply on the basis of enjoyment, I fear that we shall run into a very unreasonable bias. So, let us disban this notion of which is more enjoyable and examine them as the works of literature that they are.

As it has been stated before Tokien and Erikson are products of their times. Tolkien writes a light hearted fantasy for the most part, yes there are dark moments, but it flows with the story, and we know that in classic epic fantasy the hero shall always triumph, it was what his literature was all about, especially after the horrors of experiencing both World Wars in a span of decades. It is very common to find such work at the time to glorify the triumphant hero, such as Frodo or Aragorn while never truly developing a "human" aspect to such characters. Many can say these characters are "underdeveloped" and claim that is why they dislike these works, or that the passages are too descriptive, but that is taking it out of its historical context, which we cannot do without detracting from the work itself. In short Lord of the Rings is mainly based around the purpose of "escapism". Readers of Tolkien are able to delve into his "perfect world" so to speak and for a time leave ours behind. Such is the intent of fiction at the time.

Now, let us examine Erikson. Erikson is what can be declared as a "post modernist". In literature such as this the world is not pretty. It is a dark and real place in which the hero does not always triumph. Post modern work is often times either down right cynical or so ambiguous it is hard to distinguish what the author is trying to convey. Erikson takes a highly cynical route through his writing. His characters all have flaws, and many are unlikable given their personality, despite trying to come off as sympathetic. While Erikson does provide hope in his writing he is not looking to provide the escape that Tolkien's work offers. He challenges his readers to think and wonder at the world he has created. While we can immerse ourselves in such a world, it is not the same escape, we are still very much aware that we are watching a very surreal reflection of our own world.

To conclude it is no wonder why many would prefer Erikson over Tolkien, as a generation we have simply been brought up to be far more cynical and wary. Our literature is far more varied, and much of it is not bent on the escapism that Tolkien's was. That being said Tolkien is the originator of our modern fantasy, so we must offer him credit as the fantastic author that he is. As for my opinion on which is better I hold them in equal esteem for I recognize the merits and failings of both in terms of literary accomplishment. To be brief, neither is better than the other, they are simply what their times made, and will possibly make of them.

[JLV]

A point about postmodernism..

I hate the term, because it is so hard to pin down what actually IS postmodern. In fact, it's impossible.

SE was definitely part of a movement toward more realistic "shades of grey" heroes and villains at the beginning of his epic series.

I would argue, however, that (at least in the fantasy genre) nonperfect heroes and not completely evil villains are no longer postmodern. They have become what the lord of the rings was to fantasy, to a lesser extent. Everyone uses characters with flaws and inner conflicts. It doesn't go as far as some books do with always using elves, dwarves and the like, but I still struggle considering tMBotF postmodern, anymore.

It's arguable, but that's my opinion.

[King-of-Chains]

Quote

They have become what the lord of the rings was to fantasy, to a lesser extent. Everyone uses characters with flaws and inner conflicts. It doesn't go as far as some books do with always using elves, dwarves and the like, but I still struggle considering tMBotF postmodern, anymore.

I agree with you in this, that postmodernism is hard to define, and that inner conflict has become somewhat of a standard for the genre. However in literary terms we need to sometimes bow to neccessity of clarity in order to compare certain works. I was simply trying to find a suitable word for what Erikson has created in comparsion to Lord of the Rings, is it completely accurate? No, but literature is ever changing, so accuracy isn't always the key goal.

[Dutch]

LotR was what got me into fantasy. Until the release of the movies fantasy books just couldn't get me.

But when the Fellowship of the Ring entered the cinema and people started talking about it I got curious and decided to buy the book (in my opinion books are most of the time way better then the movies) to see where they were
talking about.

I liked the book and my interest in fantasy books grew. The Hobbit, the Two Towers, Return of the King and the Silmarillion came into my collection.

In between 2001 - 2007 I have read these books multiple times in Dutch and later on in English when I got hold of the original English versions.

The reason why haven't read them since 2007? Because of some book called "Gardens of the Moon" which I had bought while I was Christmas shopping that same year.

During the spring of 2008 I felt that it was time again to read a good fantasy book\series and while my hand was resting on the Silmarillion my eyes fell on Gardens of the Moon which I hadn't read yet because it wasn't the only book that I had bought during Christmas shopping.

Like most people the rest is kind of history, I just didn't like the book, I LOVED the book and I was blown away by the story. Deadhouse Gates and Memories of Ice followed soon and so on until I was up with the rest and waited until the release of Toll the Hounds.

Now, about three years later I'm busy with my first reread of the complete MBotF including the ICE books and the KB&B novellas and I'm happy that Tolkien got me into fantasy, but I'm even way more happier that I have discovered Erikson.

This post has been edited by Dutch: 11 November 2011 - 09:27 PM

[Orlion]

The biggest problem tMBotF needs to overcome to become and remain a classic is its length. Let's face it, if one is going to take a chance on a series, they'll go with a trilogy before a decaology, and if someone is going to analyze it... forget it, the scholarly world will always, now and forever, stick with LotR.

Viewing how past 'revolutionary series' in fantasy do also gives us a hint at Malazan's fate. You simply do not hear that much about Elric or Vance's Dying Earth, even though they are just as much at the forefront of modern fantasy genesis as LotR is. In the US, at least, they are getting increasingly difficult to find and I believe are mostly out of print. Cook's Black Company doesn't seem to fare better, and Donaldson's Covenant series will probably become widely unavailable beyond the first three books.

And most of these are shorter than tMBotF!

[Salt-Man Z]

 Orlion, on 13 November 2011 - 06:33 PM, said:

Viewing how past 'revolutionary series' in fantasy do also gives us a hint at Malazan's fate. You simply do not hear that much about Elric or Vance's Dying Earth, even though they are just as much at the forefront of modern fantasy genesis as LotR is. In the US, at least, they are getting increasingly difficult to find and I believe are mostly out of print. Cook's Black Company doesn't seem to fare better, and Donaldson's Covenant series will probably become widely unavailable beyond the first three books.

I don't know about any of this. Del Rey has recently released of the Elric stories in a series of 6 trade paperback collections. The Dying Earth has had a relatively recent omnibus. Nightshade has been rereleasing all of Cook's stuff in trade paperback omnibuses (with the Black Company just finishing up I think last year, his 20-year old Dread Empire series get rereleased and finished next year). And everything Donaldson has ever written is still in print.

If anything, I think there's been more of a swing toward bringing back a lot of the historically-important fantasy literature of the past century. Witness Del Rey's current rerelease of all of Robert E. Howard's work in a series of trade paperback collections.

This post has been edited by Salt-Man Z: 13 November 2011 - 07:20 PM

[Orlion]

 Salt-Man Z, on 13 November 2011 - 07:20 PM, said:

 Orlion, on 13 November 2011 - 06:33 PM, said:

Viewing how past 'revolutionary series' in fantasy do also gives us a hint at Malazan's fate. You simply do not hear that much about Elric or Vance's Dying Earth, even though they are just as much at the forefront of modern fantasy genesis as LotR is. In the US, at least, they are getting increasingly difficult to find and I believe are mostly out of print. Cook's Black Company doesn't seem to fare better, and Donaldson's Covenant series will probably become widely unavailable beyond the first three books.

I don't know about any of this. Del Rey has recently released of the Elric stories in a series of 6 trade paperback collections. The Dying Earth has had a relatively recent omnibus. Nightshade has been rereleasing all of Cook's stuff in trade paperback omnibuses (with the Black Company just finishing up I think last year, his 20-year old Dread Empire series get rereleased and finished next year). And everything Donaldson has ever written is still in print.

If anything, I think there's been more of a swing toward bringing back a lot of the historically-important fantasy literature of the past century. Witness Del Rey's current rerelease of all of Robert E. Howard's work in a series of trade paperback collections.

There is a certain revival in more classic fantasy stories, but aside from the Black Company I don't see many of them at the stores. Any of Moorcock's stuff seems to need to be special ordered, I do remember seeing a copy of the Dying Earth omnibus you are speaking of... but everything seems (to me) to be drifting away. It's like you get this stuff when a current popular author talks about them (Erikson talks about Cook, so there's increased interest in Cook, Martin talks about Vance so there's some interest in Vance). However, there doesn't seem to be a push to have it publicly ready at your local bookstore.
As far as Donaldson is concerned, there hasn't been another edition of the Second Chronicles like they've had with the First Chronicles, Last Chronicles aren't even available in mass market paperback, his short stories go in and out of print, and so on and so forth...
It just seems to me that longer series won't have the staying power... sure, I'll stand corrected on any implications that'd they be gone forever, but it seems that series (like Wheel of Time) well ultimately see periods of out-of-print followed by brief re-printings when it appears that a buck shall be made.

The previous, of course, does not take into account e-books, may they burn...*grumble*fifteen miles in the snow*grumble*

[JLV]

I can actually second Orlion here. In the Barnes and Noble where I go, I've only seen Donaldson and Cook (only a few of the omnibuses, though).

[King-of-Chains]

Perhaps but what of A Game of Thrones? For a long time Martin's work wasn't particularly noticed in any real light and now lately everyone wants it. They even had a TV series for it. The problem with fantasy is how people view it these days. Tolkien is considered a classic and therefore not up to much critical scrutiny, yet especially in North America the minute fantasy is mentioned critics screech. Canada (where Erikson is from) is particularly notorious for hating fantasy. For some reason us Canadians very fantasy as low brow and unworthy of out attention. In this instance I am saddened by my country, because Erikson and Bakker are perhaps two of the greatest authors to come from Canada in the past decade.

[Orlion]

 King-of-Chains, on 14 November 2011 - 05:18 AM, said:

Perhaps but what of A Game of Thrones? For a long time Martin's work wasn't particularly noticed in any real light and now lately everyone wants it. They even had a TV series for it. The problem with fantasy is how people view it these days. Tolkien is considered a classic and therefore not up to much critical scrutiny, yet especially in North America the minute fantasy is mentioned critics screech. Canada (where Erikson is from) is particularly notorious for hating fantasy. For some reason us Canadians very fantasy as low brow and unworthy of out attention. In this instance I am saddened by my country, because Erikson and Bakker are perhaps two of the greatest authors to come from Canada in the past decade.

Martin's work suffers/will suffer from the same thing Malazan will: length. Further, there's the issue of time between volumes. Martin's aSoIaF is at its height, I should think, but like WoT before it, it will lose followers if it is prolonged and will lose significance if he continues to pull five-six years writing period. And if it isn't completed? It'll be known (maybe) for not being completed.