[Abyss]

MODGOD NOTICE OF THREAD MOVE TO GENERAL FORUM



On topic, i never particularly liked LotR. I read it when i was like ten and again as an adult and it failed to impress me both times. Cute enough, but hardly mind-blowing.

MBF had me at the GotM prologue.

[King-of-Chains]

Orlion, on 14 November 2011 - 02:22 PM, said:

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.

I suppose Martin is a bad example. While length MAY be an issue it cannot be the sole issue here. Erikson has completed his series, is it long? Yes, but look at Harry Potter. It rivals the length of Martin's (if Martin finished all 7 books) and is not strictly for children (anyone who disagrees hasn't read books 4-7).

[Orlion]

King-of-Chains, on 14 November 2011 - 09:37 PM, said:

Orlion, on 14 November 2011 - 02:22 PM, said:

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.

I suppose Martin is a bad example. While length MAY be an issue it cannot be the sole issue here. Erikson has completed his series, is it long? Yes, but look at Harry Potter. It rivals the length of Martin's (if Martin finished all 7 books) and is not strictly for children (anyone who disagrees hasn't read books 4-7).

You bring about two points that I think imperative to consider as far as a book series surviving. Currently, seven seems to be a good number for a decently long series, much like how the trilogy was considered the perfect length for a time. Seven books seems to be acceptable. Ten? It doesn't look like it... yet.

But like you pointed out, both Malazan and Harry Potter are completed. Both stuck to a very regular, timely schedule in between releases (well, when it was important for HP, anyway: books 4-7). What does this mean? It means one can argue for the series in its entirety, but it also means the culture surrounding these two series are now different from that surrounding aSoIaF and WoT. No longer is a major part of it centered around anticipation and speculation for a future novel, but about links within and the story overall. Because of this, I'd place Malazan as having as good a chance if not better of surviving than aSoIaF or WoT... merely because discussion is now focused on what it is, not what it will become. I believe the longer fans have in speculating over a future volume, the more likely they are to be disappointed. Compare TCG to a Dance with Dragons. DwD (haven't read it, so I'm assuming) could be as strong as previous volumes but suffers from the long wait. (It currently has three stars on Amazon). Each book in Mazalan, however, has four stars.... Erikson does not tease his fans. Likewise, Against All Things Ending by Donaldson had a three year wait and is currently in between.

[BlackMoranthofDoom]

I think a better comparison would be between the Silmarillion and Malazan. That being said I'd go with Malazan but I also love LOTR.

[Fid]

But would we have the canon of fantasy without Lord of the Rings? Sure, it has issues, but in terms of world building it was the first and I think with Silmarillion (written before Hobbit and LOTR in terms of JRRT's writing history) there is something complete. It also made me want MORE - after that there was Donaldson and Feist and then Jordan and finally Erikson. Do I now re-read JRRT - nope - I have read it so many times over the years I hardly need to, and I am deriving so much enjoyment from MBOTF.

[Blueiron]

On the topic of the depth and shades of grey, I think many don't give LotR the credit it is due. Sure, the evil is all due to a single, irridemable god - Morgoth - and all good stems from the incorruptible and perfect Eru Iluvatar, but everyone else is fair game. Boromir is an easy example, a good man who made the wrong decision, and even Frodo didn't make his final heroic act of tossing the ring by choice - he couldn't. Granted, MBotF is infinitely better at exploring shades of grey, but in a different way. Characters in MBotF spend a great deal of time deciding what exactly is right, while LotR is more about finding the courage to act when you already know what the right thing to do is.

[Abyss]

Blueiron, on 15 November 2011 - 10:19 PM, said:

... LotR is more about finding the courage to act when you already know what the right thing to do is.

..and then singing about it.

- Abyss, ...sorry, sorry, couldn't resist...

[Blueiron]

Abyss, on 15 November 2011 - 10:33 PM, said:

Blueiron, on 15 November 2011 - 10:19 PM, said:

... LotR is more about finding the courage to act when you already know what the right thing to do is.

..and then singing about it.

- Abyss, ...sorry, sorry, couldn't resist...

Alright, the way I put it was kinda melodramatic. But considering that Ea was created through song, singing about it seems like a decent option.
lalalalala

[Vaddon Ra]

Lord of The Rings (while not actually being that big a book) felt like it took ages for me to read through. I think Tolkiens Prose was so high end english and so poetic it felt a bit like a historical poem, kind of like Illiad...A book to study and not just to delve into...I know a lot of readers will not agree but I still haven't actually finished the whole thing...iv read fellowship, the good half of two towers before the homoerotic whinge-fest begins, and half of ROTK...its very well written .... But Malaz is just more...well... engaging. I read a fantasy book to be swept out of my life into some sheer mind blowing escapism...Tolkien is too wordy for me for that. Erikson, while his books are huge, is far more enjoyable.

[Azathmaster]

Children of Hurin killed Lotr for me

[Defiance]

Malazan is more than a book series for me. It stands apart from my entire selection in a way that is hard to accurately put in words.

For example, I love GRRM's Ice and Fire books. When I read them, though, they're just that - enjoyable books, an escape into a fun (although dark) and intriguing fantasy world. The same goes for reading Erikson, but his books go beyond this. I don't feel like I'm just reading a story - I feel like I'm being given a glimpse into a whole new universe. Of course it's contradictory, but I feel that, even had the books never been written, the world of Malazan would still be there (and not just in Steven Erikson's head).

Also, the themes of the book truly speak to me. I may not gather all of them (I find more every time I reread), but those that I do find, one and all, speak to me. I may not agree with everything, but that's not the point. As Erikson stated in an interview, he wrote the series with the intention that he was searching for the right questions, not the right answers. From his works, though, I've been able to take questions and forge them into my own answers. His insight regarding the human condition is astounding. People often criticize him for shallow characters, but damn, I've always felt that he has the most real characters out there. Other fantasy characters may be more "three dimensional," but I've found that this just makes them feel artificial. It makes me get the feeling that I'm reading a book, not an actual historical recount.

Erikson really makes me think. To give one example, when (I believe) Spite talks about healing Chaur, she mentions that doing so may not be a good thing. This really made me consider mental retardation. Yes, in many cases, I can understand why I cure is desired so much. But, when it comes to those people who are retarded but are always (or as near to always as is possible) happy, what right do we have to "cure" them. Is there really value in experiencing the trivialities, the sufferings, the hardships, of everyday life? Are we not being selfish in our desire to cure them, to make them "normal," because their lack of serious mental function makes them different than us?

The first two times I read the series, The Bonehunters was my favorite book. Toll the Hounds has taken its place, though. When Erikson says it's the cypher to his series, he really means it. The number of themes and ideas that can be taken from this one book is near limitless, and it all has become more amazing after Erikson's recent podcast. For those who haven't heard it, he talks about how the series itself is actually the hero's journey (no one character actually takes this journey; it's the reader who takes it. It also explains why the last book isn't as terribly tragic as most were expecting). Toll the Hounds can be considered the hero's journey as well (and thus, the cypher to the series). I won't go too far into it, but consider: the Abyss of the hero's journey is reflected quite literally in the Abyss with Belrudan. The Atonement part of the hero's journey is reflected in Anomander Rake's heroic sacrifice and the return of Mother Dark.

I also can't name a book series in which I love so many characters.

Sorry, I'm droning on. Talking about these books gets me ridiculously excited.

Lord of the Rings was just an interesting read, but I didn't find it particularly compelling in any way.

[Kruppe's snacky cakes]

LotR will always be my first fantasy love, circa age 12. Pre-growing-up-and-running-low-on-free-time, I read through them once a year. I currently own the movies, audiobooks, and radio drama, along with pretty much every book related to middle-earth (including the atlases, encyclopedias, companion guides, handbooks, etc.). I still remember ordering every new History of Middle-Earth book directly from Houghton Mifflin and then riding my bike up to the post office every day hoping it had arrived. Additionally, although I was never into role playing, reading through the Tolkien quest books (Night of the Nazgul, etc.) ranks among my favorite childhood memories.

Having said that, I recognize something unique and special about the Malazan books as well, even though I am not even all the way finished with GotM. I suspect I will end up owning everything Malazan-related, as well. Although, sadly, there will likely never be nearly as much to own...

[worry]

On the bright side, you have this message board! Dunno why Tolkien never thought of that.

[flea]

LOTR taught me at age 10 that reading is the greatest thing in the world. There is nothing else I have read since that has has had such an impact. That said, much of the writing is rubbish. Dialogue is mostly poor, as is characterization. When Tolkien slips into "epic speak" he is truly execrable.

Erikson is a superior writer in almost every way. His work, however, will never have the impact of Tolkien's. Even in the world of fantasy, Erikson is definitely appealing to a minority. But then that's evidence of his superiority.

[BlackMoranthofDoom]

I love LOTR as I said beforehand, but i just think its unfair when people say its the best series based purely on its influence without giving Malazan and ASOIAF a chance. Thats like saying the first computer is the best because it came first. Quality is very different from influence and it seems lots of people use the terms interchangeably. LOTR is amongst the most influential, but that doesn't necessarily make the best.

[wullagaru]

for me its a weird nostalgia for LotR, like many others here its what got me into fantasy (well the hobbit did but nevertheless tolkien) but I cant say that I have read them in quite some time. partially because I had read them so many times that the words are burned into my brain, partially because, to a degree they lack a little bit of realism that i like in my fantasy now. Like others here have said Middle earth was a "perfect" fantasy world, where teh good guys come out on top .. after a long hard road to be sure but there is that victory.

meanwhile 2 years ago I started the MBotF series (mostly because of an endorsement by Steven Donaldson on the cover of GotM) and I was soo caught up in it soo quickly. other series before this were the wheel of time (which slowly got too bulky and nothing happened) and Song of Ice and Fire which took too long for new books to come out and while i think its interesting that an author can kill off characters that you grow to like, killing them all off (as martin seems to be doing) is a bit much. The Malazan books were perfect for me. they're long ( i read very quickly and prefer 600+ page books) they never get boring and there are sooo many characters. plus like tolkien there is a huge history that is hinted at (and to a slight degree told).

I guess I would have to come down on the side of the malazan books but only slightly

[Geer]

Both are my favorite. LOTR from my earlier years, when I looked at the world with a lot of childish innocence and optimism. And now, that I am older, not necessarily wiser, but definitely more experienced at what life can throw at you, TMBoF. It is gritty, deep, subtle, convoluted, realistic, totally satisfying, and therefore, more satisfying to the adult in me.

[Deck of Dragons]

Lord of the Rings, the Hobbit, Silmarillian, Unfinished Tales, and History of Middle Earth 1-12.

I don't think anything can and ever will hold a candle to that.

[Hust]

I first read LotR when i was about 12 or 13. I thought it was even better than the hobbit, a more grown up set of books.

Like it or not for most people if you mention a fantasy book they would think of the LotR.

Its a good story if a little old fashioned in todays more cynical approach to life. Myself i dont like the good guys versus the bad guys story in it because there is always people on both sides of a conflict that could be thought of as good or bad.

The MBotF is a more realistic story where every one is a shade of grey and that is what real life is like good people do bad things and vice versa. Also enjoyable is the fact that i have read the series twice and some books three times and each time they are read you read something else you missed last time that explains what happens in two or three or more books time.

I dont think the MBotF will be as popular ever as LotR but you never know, imagine all the people who would start reading SE and ICE's work if they saw a tv show like Game of Thrones or a set of films like LotR.

Erikson wins hands down over LotR for his bloody brilliant series of books.

[Nyarlathotep]

Which do I love more? Sorry, can't answer that question. Read LOTR when I was 11 and that started me down the fantasy road. Read MBOTF 20 years later at a time when I had, more or less, stopped reading fantasy and it rekindled my interest in the genre. So, they're both equally influential to me personally.
As to the future? Who knows? When LOTR was first published, nobody thought it was going to be a best seller, spawn an industry of clones, get voted best book of the 20th century, get turned into 3 succesful movies and become a cultural phenomenon. And it took 70 years for that to happen. I hope it happens for the MBOTF but we're just gonna have to wait and see. But it will need to move itself into the wider public consciousness for that to happen.
Maybe if they turned it into a rock opera? Bleurgh! I've just made myself vomit!