Help
On the back of the paperback edition of "MidnightTides" there is a quote present that states Steven Erikson perhaps goes one step further then Tolkien in the writing of fantasy.
Slightly poll like, but would you agree with this? I personally feel although the MBoTF is a great series thus far and no doubt will be til its conclusion in the tenth novel, but I feel he will never surpass (perhaps no-one will) the talent or J.R.R.Tolkien.
Perhaps this was a rather naiive comment, comparing a relativly new series to a book that has far more fans than it, and has been around far longer. If I had to choose, I would have to say that LoTR & its HoME was the better series.
If you think otherwise and that this person was right, how has Steven Erikson gone one better? I myself cannot see it. (I am in no way "dissin" his work, it is a fantastic series.)
Opinion or Fact?
#2 Guest_Fool_*
Posted 24 April 2006 - 01:50 PM
First bakker, then martin, now tolkien?
Whats this? Most overrated fantasy week? As i said elsewhere, i find that the only thing tolkien has going for him is the world building and even then only in terms of depth. I dont care for his prose, i dont care for his characters, i dont care for his plot.
Mostly agree with Moorcock, too....
http://www.revolutio...cle.html?id=953
Whats this? Most overrated fantasy week? As i said elsewhere, i find that the only thing tolkien has going for him is the world building and even then only in terms of depth. I dont care for his prose, i dont care for his characters, i dont care for his plot.
Mostly agree with Moorcock, too....
http://www.revolutio...cle.html?id=953
#4 Guest_Danyah_*
Posted 24 April 2006 - 02:20 PM
Tolkien was more a pioneer. His silmarillion seem quite biblical, I have a hard time accepting inherently good or evil races. Somehow I feel sorry for the orcs and goblins. They are ugly, evil, stupid and they always lose in the end.
Great world building, both authors, but Erikson's characters are more human, while Tolkien more tends to Greek Tragedy, ie character and characteristic are the same. While I appreciate Tolkien, because it's the first fantasy I read, I have to rank CM, GRRM and SE above him, both story- and characterwise.
Great world building, both authors, but Erikson's characters are more human, while Tolkien more tends to Greek Tragedy, ie character and characteristic are the same. While I appreciate Tolkien, because it's the first fantasy I read, I have to rank CM, GRRM and SE above him, both story- and characterwise.
#5
Limaris 
- Corporal
-
- Group: Malaz Regular
- Posts: 41
- Joined: 16-April 06
- Location:Sunny city of the Magpies
- Interests:puppies & long walks
Posted 24 April 2006 - 02:31 PM
Interesting. Danya, do you find that Tolkien's story is too simple? That although there are what can be percieved as six seperate stories they are similar, and work towards the same goal, defeat or evil? Also for his characters are you sure that Erikson's characters are more human? I fail to see much difference between orc, elf to human, than Toblakai, Imass, Barghast, Forkrul Assail etc to humans? I do not mean to disregard your thoughts at all, I am only eternally curious!
I do however SE has a slight edge over the characters in that they are more varied and imaginative. That I suppose along with the warrens is something I feel does lend well to his series and would make him shine more differently than Tolkien.
I do however SE has a slight edge over the characters in that they are more varied and imaginative. That I suppose along with the warrens is something I feel does lend well to his series and would make him shine more differently than Tolkien.
#6 Guest_Fool_*
Posted 24 April 2006 - 02:42 PM
Couple Quotes from the linked article:
Bad pacing, long winded, sounds like a fairy tale with higher level diction.
Quote
The sort of prose most often identified with "high" fantasy is the prose of the nursery-room. It is a lullaby; it is meant to soothe and console. It is mouth-music. It is frequently enjoyed not for its tensions but for its lack of tensions. It coddles; it makes friends with you; it tells you comforting lies. It is soft:
One day when the sun had come back over the forest, bringing with it the scent of May, and all the streams of the Forest were tinkling happily to find themselves their own pretty shape again, and the little pools lay dreaming of the life they had seen and the big things they had done, and in the warmth and quiet of the Forest the cuckoo was trying over his voice carefully and listening to see if he liked it, and wood-pigeons were complaining gently to themselves in their lazy comfortable way that it was the other fellow's fault, but it didn't matter very much; on such a day as this Christopher Robin whistled in a special way he had, and Owl came flying out of the Hundred Acre Wood to see what was wanted.
Winnie-the-Pooh, 1926
It is the predominant tone of The Lord of the Rings and Watership Down and it is the main reason why these books, like many similar ones in the past, are successful. It is the tone of many forgotten British and American bestsellers, well-remembered children's books, like The Wind in the Willows, you often hear it in regional fiction addressed to a local audience, or, in a more sophisticated form, James Barrie (Dear Brutus, Mary Rose and, of course, Peter Pan). Unlike the tone of E.Nesbit (Five Children and It etc.), Richmal Crompton (the 'William' books) Terry Pratchett or the redoubtable J.K.Rowling, it is sentimental, slightly distanced, often wistful, a trifle retrospective; it contains little wit and much whimsy. The humour is often unconscious because, as with Tolkien, the authors take words seriously but without pleasure:
One summer's evening an astonishing piece of news reached the Ivy Bush and Green Dragon. Giants and other portents on the borders of the Shire were forgotten for more important matters; Mr. Frodo was selling Bag End, indeed he had already sold it-to the Sackville-Bagginses!
"For a nice bit, too," said some. "At a bargain price," said others, "and that's more likely when Mistress Lobelia's the buyer." (Otho had died some years before, at the ripe but disappointed age of 102.)
Just why Mr. Frodo was selling his beautiful hole was even more debatable than the price...
The Fellowship of the Ring, 1954
I have been told it is not fair to quote from the earlier parts of The Lord of the Rings, that I should look elsewhere to find much better stuff so, opening it entirely at random, I find some improvement in substance and writing, but that tone is still there:
Pippin became drowsy again and paid little attention to Gandalf telling him of the customs of Gondor, and how the Lord of the City had beacons built on the tops of outlying hills along both borders of the great range, and maintained posts at these points where fresh horses were always in readiness to bear his errand-riders to Rohan in the North, or to Belfalas in the South. "It is long since the beacons of the North were lit," he said; "and in the ancient days of Gondor they were not needed, for they had the Seven Stones."
Pippin stirred uneasily.
The Return of the King, 1955
One day when the sun had come back over the forest, bringing with it the scent of May, and all the streams of the Forest were tinkling happily to find themselves their own pretty shape again, and the little pools lay dreaming of the life they had seen and the big things they had done, and in the warmth and quiet of the Forest the cuckoo was trying over his voice carefully and listening to see if he liked it, and wood-pigeons were complaining gently to themselves in their lazy comfortable way that it was the other fellow's fault, but it didn't matter very much; on such a day as this Christopher Robin whistled in a special way he had, and Owl came flying out of the Hundred Acre Wood to see what was wanted.
Winnie-the-Pooh, 1926
It is the predominant tone of The Lord of the Rings and Watership Down and it is the main reason why these books, like many similar ones in the past, are successful. It is the tone of many forgotten British and American bestsellers, well-remembered children's books, like The Wind in the Willows, you often hear it in regional fiction addressed to a local audience, or, in a more sophisticated form, James Barrie (Dear Brutus, Mary Rose and, of course, Peter Pan). Unlike the tone of E.Nesbit (Five Children and It etc.), Richmal Crompton (the 'William' books) Terry Pratchett or the redoubtable J.K.Rowling, it is sentimental, slightly distanced, often wistful, a trifle retrospective; it contains little wit and much whimsy. The humour is often unconscious because, as with Tolkien, the authors take words seriously but without pleasure:
One summer's evening an astonishing piece of news reached the Ivy Bush and Green Dragon. Giants and other portents on the borders of the Shire were forgotten for more important matters; Mr. Frodo was selling Bag End, indeed he had already sold it-to the Sackville-Bagginses!
"For a nice bit, too," said some. "At a bargain price," said others, "and that's more likely when Mistress Lobelia's the buyer." (Otho had died some years before, at the ripe but disappointed age of 102.)
Just why Mr. Frodo was selling his beautiful hole was even more debatable than the price...
The Fellowship of the Ring, 1954
I have been told it is not fair to quote from the earlier parts of The Lord of the Rings, that I should look elsewhere to find much better stuff so, opening it entirely at random, I find some improvement in substance and writing, but that tone is still there:
Pippin became drowsy again and paid little attention to Gandalf telling him of the customs of Gondor, and how the Lord of the City had beacons built on the tops of outlying hills along both borders of the great range, and maintained posts at these points where fresh horses were always in readiness to bear his errand-riders to Rohan in the North, or to Belfalas in the South. "It is long since the beacons of the North were lit," he said; "and in the ancient days of Gondor they were not needed, for they had the Seven Stones."
Pippin stirred uneasily.
The Return of the King, 1955
Quote
The Lord of the Rings is much more deep-rooted in its infantilism than a good many of the more obviously juvenile books it influenced. It is Winnie-the-Pooh posing as an epic. If the Shire is a suburban garden, Sauron and his henchmen are that old bourgeois bugaboo, the Mob - mindless football supporters throwing their beer-bottles over the fence the worst aspects of modern urban society represented as the whole by a fearful, backward-yearning class for whom "good taste" is synonymous with "restraint" (pastel colours, murmured protest) and "civilized" behaviour means "conventional behaviour in all circumstances". This is not to deny that courageous characters are found in The Lord of the Rings, or a willingness to fight Evil (never really defined), but somehow those courageous characters take on the aspect of retired colonels at last driven to write a letter to The Times and we are not sure - because Tolkien cannot really bring himself to get close to his proles and their satanic leaders - if Sauron and Co. are quite as evil as we're told. After all, anyone who hates hobbits can't be all bad.
Bad pacing, long winded, sounds like a fairy tale with higher level diction.
#7 Guest_Danyah_*
Posted 24 April 2006 - 02:54 PM
Well, Tolkien's story isn't as complex as Erikson's, but Erikson has the most complex story I read up until now. People like Feist and Goodkind just spawn some linear storyline into a book. Tolkien writes good, though his prose might feel bombastic to some. I don't mind that, nor the level of complexity.
My interest goes out to well developed characters, or, understandable, human characters. Lot's of people hate the Mhybe for her whining, but that's what makes her all the more human. The insecurities, the every day heroism, the activism, the fear. Tolkien's characters are defined by one or two characteristics, which will drive them trough the book. SE and GRRM let their characters die, which is realistic. Tolkien only lets the bad ones die. I mean, which important character died in LotR prematurely. They all die of old age, or move to the Lands of the Elves.
Tolkien lacks the realism in which your race does not define your destiny, your alignment and your goal. Orcs are evil, but are the Imass evil? Lots of people used the concept of the inherent evil, Feist, Goodkind, Brooks,....and I dislike most of their work. A couple of years ago, Tolkien ruled over all IMO, but now I discoverd other authors, who IMO create more depth to story and characters, which makes me give them a higher rating. Pure subjectivity.
My interest goes out to well developed characters, or, understandable, human characters. Lot's of people hate the Mhybe for her whining, but that's what makes her all the more human. The insecurities, the every day heroism, the activism, the fear. Tolkien's characters are defined by one or two characteristics, which will drive them trough the book. SE and GRRM let their characters die, which is realistic. Tolkien only lets the bad ones die. I mean, which important character died in LotR prematurely. They all die of old age, or move to the Lands of the Elves.
Tolkien lacks the realism in which your race does not define your destiny, your alignment and your goal. Orcs are evil, but are the Imass evil? Lots of people used the concept of the inherent evil, Feist, Goodkind, Brooks,....and I dislike most of their work. A couple of years ago, Tolkien ruled over all IMO, but now I discoverd other authors, who IMO create more depth to story and characters, which makes me give them a higher rating. Pure subjectivity.
#8
Limaris
- Corporal
-
- Group: Malaz Regular
- Posts: 41
- Joined: 16-April 06
- Location:Sunny city of the Magpies
- Interests:puppies & long walks
Posted 24 April 2006 - 03:08 PM
Quote:
"The sort of prose most often identified with "high" fantasy is the prose of the nursery-room. It is a lullaby; it is meant to soothe and console. It is mouth-music. It is frequently enjoyed not for its tensions but for its lack of tensions. It coddles; it makes friends with you; it tells you comforting lies. It is soft:
One day when the sun had come back over the forest, bringing with it the scent of May, and all the streams of the Forest were tinkling happily to find themselves their own pretty shape again, and the little pools lay dreaming of the life they had seen and the big things they had done, and in the warmth and quiet of the Forest the cuckoo was trying over his voice carefully and listening to see if he liked it, and wood-pigeons were complaining gently to themselves in their lazy comfortable way that it was the other fellow's fault, but it didn't matter very much; on such a day as this Christopher Robin whistled in a special way he had, and Owl came flying out of the Hundred Acre Wood to see what was wanted.
Winnie-the-Pooh, 1926
It is the predominant tone of The Lord of the Rings and Watership Down and it is the main reason why these books, like many similar ones in the past, are successful. It is the tone of many forgotten British and American bestsellers, well-remembered children's books, like The Wind in the Willows, you often hear it in regional fiction addressed to a local audience, or, in a more sophisticated form, James Barrie (Dear Brutus, Mary Rose and, of course, Peter Pan). Unlike the tone of E.Nesbit (Five Children and It etc.), Richmal Crompton (the 'William' books) Terry Pratchett or the redoubtable J.K.Rowling, it is sentimental, slightly distanced, often wistful, a trifle retrospective; it contains little wit and much whimsy. The humour is often unconscious because, as with Tolkien, the authors take words seriously but without pleasure:
One summer's evening an astonishing piece of news reached the Ivy Bush and Green Dragon. Giants and other portents on the borders of the Shire were forgotten for more important matters; Mr. Frodo was selling Bag End, indeed he had already sold it-to the Sackville-Bagginses!
"For a nice bit, too," said some. "At a bargain price," said others, "and that's more likely when Mistress Lobelia's the buyer." (Otho had died some years before, at the ripe but disappointed age of 102.)
Just why Mr. Frodo was selling his beautiful hole was even more debatable than the price...
The Fellowship of the Ring, 1954
I have been told it is not fair to quote from the earlier parts of The Lord of the Rings, that I should look elsewhere to find much better stuff so, opening it entirely at random, I find some improvement in substance and writing, but that tone is still there:
Pippin became drowsy again and paid little attention to Gandalf telling him of the customs of Gondor, and how the Lord of the City had beacons built on the tops of outlying hills along both borders of the great range, and maintained posts at these points where fresh horses were always in readiness to bear his errand-riders to Rohan in the North, or to Belfalas in the South. "It is long since the beacons of the North were lit," he said; "and in the ancient days of Gondor they were not needed, for they had the Seven Stones."
Pippin stirred uneasily.
The Return of the King, 1955"
Quote:
"The Lord of the Rings is much more deep-rooted in its infantilism than a good many of the more obviously juvenile books it influenced. It is Winnie-the-Pooh posing as an epic. If the Shire is a suburban garden, Sauron and his henchmen are that old bourgeois bugaboo, the Mob - mindless football supporters throwing their beer-bottles over the fence the worst aspects of modern urban society represented as the whole by a fearful, backward-yearning class for whom "good taste" is synonymous with "restraint" (pastel colours, murmured protest) and "civilized" behaviour means "conventional behaviour in all circumstances". This is not to deny that courageous characters are found in The Lord of the Rings, or a willingness to fight Evil (never really defined), but somehow those courageous characters take on the aspect of retired colonels at last driven to write a letter to The Times and we are not sure - because Tolkien cannot really bring himself to get close to his proles and their satanic leaders - if Sauron and Co. are quite as evil as we're told. After all, anyone who hates hobbits can't be all bad."
Bad pacing, long winded, sounds like a fairy tale with higher level diction."
~~~~~~~
"Bad, pacing, lond winded, sounds like a fairy tale with higher level diction." Is exactly what I would say about all this person has written! To say that LoTR is like Winnie-the-pooh is utterly ridiculous!! Perhaps I should have made myself a little more clear in that when I say LoTR I mean the trilogy and the HoME as well. It is naiive to dismiss long passages of description and dialogue to be "long-winded", the nature of a good book is in its description and ability to bring to the reader the places and characters too life. Something that cannot be done within a few sentances!
This person also seems to focus solely upon dialogue within the book and does not extend his critism to a more deep level within the description. His dialogue although chosen at random falls upon that of a Hobbit, a race that is naiive and infantile in its knowledge, understanding and attitude to happenings outside the Shire.
You have only to read the HoME to appreciate that Tolkien was a hardcore writer and does not write prose that is "soft and cuddly"! And what a strange comment;
"It is frequently enjoyed not for its tensions but for its lack of tensions."
I would find and I am sure most people would agree, a book without tensions would make for a boring read!
"The sort of prose most often identified with "high" fantasy is the prose of the nursery-room. It is a lullaby; it is meant to soothe and console. It is mouth-music. It is frequently enjoyed not for its tensions but for its lack of tensions. It coddles; it makes friends with you; it tells you comforting lies. It is soft:
One day when the sun had come back over the forest, bringing with it the scent of May, and all the streams of the Forest were tinkling happily to find themselves their own pretty shape again, and the little pools lay dreaming of the life they had seen and the big things they had done, and in the warmth and quiet of the Forest the cuckoo was trying over his voice carefully and listening to see if he liked it, and wood-pigeons were complaining gently to themselves in their lazy comfortable way that it was the other fellow's fault, but it didn't matter very much; on such a day as this Christopher Robin whistled in a special way he had, and Owl came flying out of the Hundred Acre Wood to see what was wanted.
Winnie-the-Pooh, 1926
It is the predominant tone of The Lord of the Rings and Watership Down and it is the main reason why these books, like many similar ones in the past, are successful. It is the tone of many forgotten British and American bestsellers, well-remembered children's books, like The Wind in the Willows, you often hear it in regional fiction addressed to a local audience, or, in a more sophisticated form, James Barrie (Dear Brutus, Mary Rose and, of course, Peter Pan). Unlike the tone of E.Nesbit (Five Children and It etc.), Richmal Crompton (the 'William' books) Terry Pratchett or the redoubtable J.K.Rowling, it is sentimental, slightly distanced, often wistful, a trifle retrospective; it contains little wit and much whimsy. The humour is often unconscious because, as with Tolkien, the authors take words seriously but without pleasure:
One summer's evening an astonishing piece of news reached the Ivy Bush and Green Dragon. Giants and other portents on the borders of the Shire were forgotten for more important matters; Mr. Frodo was selling Bag End, indeed he had already sold it-to the Sackville-Bagginses!
"For a nice bit, too," said some. "At a bargain price," said others, "and that's more likely when Mistress Lobelia's the buyer." (Otho had died some years before, at the ripe but disappointed age of 102.)
Just why Mr. Frodo was selling his beautiful hole was even more debatable than the price...
The Fellowship of the Ring, 1954
I have been told it is not fair to quote from the earlier parts of The Lord of the Rings, that I should look elsewhere to find much better stuff so, opening it entirely at random, I find some improvement in substance and writing, but that tone is still there:
Pippin became drowsy again and paid little attention to Gandalf telling him of the customs of Gondor, and how the Lord of the City had beacons built on the tops of outlying hills along both borders of the great range, and maintained posts at these points where fresh horses were always in readiness to bear his errand-riders to Rohan in the North, or to Belfalas in the South. "It is long since the beacons of the North were lit," he said; "and in the ancient days of Gondor they were not needed, for they had the Seven Stones."
Pippin stirred uneasily.
The Return of the King, 1955"
Quote:
"The Lord of the Rings is much more deep-rooted in its infantilism than a good many of the more obviously juvenile books it influenced. It is Winnie-the-Pooh posing as an epic. If the Shire is a suburban garden, Sauron and his henchmen are that old bourgeois bugaboo, the Mob - mindless football supporters throwing their beer-bottles over the fence the worst aspects of modern urban society represented as the whole by a fearful, backward-yearning class for whom "good taste" is synonymous with "restraint" (pastel colours, murmured protest) and "civilized" behaviour means "conventional behaviour in all circumstances". This is not to deny that courageous characters are found in The Lord of the Rings, or a willingness to fight Evil (never really defined), but somehow those courageous characters take on the aspect of retired colonels at last driven to write a letter to The Times and we are not sure - because Tolkien cannot really bring himself to get close to his proles and their satanic leaders - if Sauron and Co. are quite as evil as we're told. After all, anyone who hates hobbits can't be all bad."
Bad pacing, long winded, sounds like a fairy tale with higher level diction."
~~~~~~~
"Bad, pacing, lond winded, sounds like a fairy tale with higher level diction." Is exactly what I would say about all this person has written! To say that LoTR is like Winnie-the-pooh is utterly ridiculous!! Perhaps I should have made myself a little more clear in that when I say LoTR I mean the trilogy and the HoME as well. It is naiive to dismiss long passages of description and dialogue to be "long-winded", the nature of a good book is in its description and ability to bring to the reader the places and characters too life. Something that cannot be done within a few sentances!
This person also seems to focus solely upon dialogue within the book and does not extend his critism to a more deep level within the description. His dialogue although chosen at random falls upon that of a Hobbit, a race that is naiive and infantile in its knowledge, understanding and attitude to happenings outside the Shire.
You have only to read the HoME to appreciate that Tolkien was a hardcore writer and does not write prose that is "soft and cuddly"! And what a strange comment;
"It is frequently enjoyed not for its tensions but for its lack of tensions."
I would find and I am sure most people would agree, a book without tensions would make for a boring read!
#9 Guest_Danyah_*
Posted 24 April 2006 - 03:15 PM
Calling the Moria or helm's deep scenes infantile or cuddly is completely next to the point. And calling Tolkien humourless, except unintented is a bit exaggerated too.
#10
Dolorous Menhir
- God
-
- Group: Wiki Contributor
- Posts: 4,550
- Joined: 31-January 06
Posted 24 April 2006 - 03:18 PM
Going book-by-book in the Lord of the Rings, the first book is ok - because everyone is together in one group - but the divided structure of the other two just kill it for me. Aragorn, Gimli & Legolas are far more interesting than the various Hobbits, and there is a palpable feeling of apathy when you finish one half of the book (on a re-read), knowing the next part will just be Frodo & Sam crossing Mordor for what seems like eternity.
And Tolkein has one of the worst cases ever of the underwritten bad guys. Sauron is just some guy you never see, the Orcs are paper-thin, the Nazgul I do like, and the end? Bah. They glitzed it up for the film, but the book is just a bit meh. And the epilogue in the Shire with Saruman, that's just weird.
But then again it's easy to bash Tolkein. He wrote his books so long ago. I doubt a new author writing such material would even get published, but he's very much the founder, the one who forged a path. It's not his fault people have improved on his writing and ideas since. That's the way things should be.
And Tolkein has one of the worst cases ever of the underwritten bad guys. Sauron is just some guy you never see, the Orcs are paper-thin, the Nazgul I do like, and the end? Bah. They glitzed it up for the film, but the book is just a bit meh. And the epilogue in the Shire with Saruman, that's just weird.
But then again it's easy to bash Tolkein. He wrote his books so long ago. I doubt a new author writing such material would even get published, but he's very much the founder, the one who forged a path. It's not his fault people have improved on his writing and ideas since. That's the way things should be.
#11 Guest_Fool_*
Posted 24 April 2006 - 03:30 PM
Quote
the nature of a good book is in its description and ability to bring to the reader the places and characters too life. Something that cannot be done within a few sentances!
Oh, but it can. If you're good, it can. In fact sometimes the smallest details can have a greater effect than paragraphs upon paragraphs of bombastic description.
Quality over quantity.
Also note, i only quoted part of the article. For instance the next paragraph after the first quote starts:
Quote
Tolkien does, admittedly, rise above this sort of thing on occasions, in some key scenes,
But there is a lot of that other stuff going on in between.
#12
Illuyankas
- Retro Classic
-
- Group: The Hateocracy of Truth
- Posts: 7,254
- Joined: 28-September 04
- Will cluck you up
Posted 24 April 2006 - 03:54 PM
Quote
Terry Pratchett once remarked that all his readers were called Kevin. He is lucky in that he appears to be the only Terry in fantasy land who is able to write a decent complex sentence.
Have to agree here
.
Hello, soldiers, look at your mage, now back to me, now back at your mage, now back to me. Sadly, he isn’t me, but if he stopped being an unascended mortal and switched to Sole Spice, he could smell like he’s me. Look down, back up, where are you? You’re in a warren with the High Mage your cadre mage could smell like. What’s in your hand, back at me. I have it, it’s an acorn with two gates to that realm you love. Look again, the acorn is now otataral. Anything is possible when your mage smells like Sole Spice and not a Bole brother. I’m on a quorl.
#13
Malarion
- Malarion
-
- Group: Malaz Regular
- Posts: 272
- Joined: 07-January 03
- Location:Somehwere between the hammer and the anvil
- Interests:Reading...writing...drinking
Posted 24 April 2006 - 04:14 PM
I agree with Fool with many of his feelings towards Tolkien. As a story, the LOTR is pretty slow in its pacing, lacks any real dramatic twists (Galdalf falling in Moria is one of the notable few), and suffers from many poorly formed characters. Excluding the grey wizard himself, few of the main characters featured in the trilogy will ever rank amongst my favourites in the genre. The hobbits, complete with the naivity and pipe weed, only serve to irritate. They are adults and yet throughtout the book they display little more than child-like attitudes. Its seem Tolkien confuses small stature with small-mindedness.
I find it funny that in many ways the films only highlighted the failings of the books. The nazghul (which in theory should have ranked amongst fantasy literatures greatest evil villians) were paper thin both in film and in book. Remember, these were creatures many centuries old, former kings of men. And yet all they seemed to do was hiss and snarl and die pretty easily. In the FOTR Aragorn can singlehandedly drive off many of them, Witch King included. And yet later the Witch King is bummed up to be some almighty power.
Another failing of the books is the lack of forward planning. How often in the LOTR did something feel thrown in to forward the story? The dead army? The Balrog? Shelob?
This is a failing of many modern fantasies, but is something Erikson, Martin etc seem to do quite well (go back and reread earlier Erikson books and you will see foundations of later stories quite cleverly interlaced into the plot. Meaningless at the time but of great worth later. Its better to feel the story evolved from a base than from necessity.
The greatest failing of the LOTR is due to the mind-set of the author who wrote it. The trilogy is not a series of books sprung from a man's idea for a story. They are a result of a man's love for a world and his need to take you on a grand-tour of his creation. These are not books driven by plot but by love of creation, and that is where they fail. Think on it. Was there much of Tolkien's Middle Earth map left uncrossed by some character before the end of the book? Was the splitting of the fellowship more to do with covering more land than for any real purpose of futhering the plot of a well thought out story? Why did they need to go to Fangorn? Why Moria? Why every city and fortress shown on the map? Even the areas the LOTR didn't explore, the Hobbit ventured into previously.
And funnily, thats why, despite ponderous prose and weak plotting, I still find I have a love for this book and Tolkiens other works. None of his stories grip me but his world always has, his mythology always has.
And it is this that will ever be the LOTR's saviour. Where books with similar weak plots will fall, the LOTR's will go on because of the foundations of the tale. The echoes of Morgoth, the fury of the Balrog, the long hstory of Sauron. Its a weak book, yes, but one with a colourful basis. It sits better in my mind now than it did 15 years ago, as a work of passion rather than as a work of prose.
That is why, despite not having read it in over a decade, I doubt I ever shall again. To read it again would be to demolish the foundations of my minds picture of this unusal book.
I find it funny that in many ways the films only highlighted the failings of the books. The nazghul (which in theory should have ranked amongst fantasy literatures greatest evil villians) were paper thin both in film and in book. Remember, these were creatures many centuries old, former kings of men. And yet all they seemed to do was hiss and snarl and die pretty easily. In the FOTR Aragorn can singlehandedly drive off many of them, Witch King included. And yet later the Witch King is bummed up to be some almighty power.
Another failing of the books is the lack of forward planning. How often in the LOTR did something feel thrown in to forward the story? The dead army? The Balrog? Shelob?
This is a failing of many modern fantasies, but is something Erikson, Martin etc seem to do quite well (go back and reread earlier Erikson books and you will see foundations of later stories quite cleverly interlaced into the plot. Meaningless at the time but of great worth later. Its better to feel the story evolved from a base than from necessity.
The greatest failing of the LOTR is due to the mind-set of the author who wrote it. The trilogy is not a series of books sprung from a man's idea for a story. They are a result of a man's love for a world and his need to take you on a grand-tour of his creation. These are not books driven by plot but by love of creation, and that is where they fail. Think on it. Was there much of Tolkien's Middle Earth map left uncrossed by some character before the end of the book? Was the splitting of the fellowship more to do with covering more land than for any real purpose of futhering the plot of a well thought out story? Why did they need to go to Fangorn? Why Moria? Why every city and fortress shown on the map? Even the areas the LOTR didn't explore, the Hobbit ventured into previously.
And funnily, thats why, despite ponderous prose and weak plotting, I still find I have a love for this book and Tolkiens other works. None of his stories grip me but his world always has, his mythology always has.
And it is this that will ever be the LOTR's saviour. Where books with similar weak plots will fall, the LOTR's will go on because of the foundations of the tale. The echoes of Morgoth, the fury of the Balrog, the long hstory of Sauron. Its a weak book, yes, but one with a colourful basis. It sits better in my mind now than it did 15 years ago, as a work of passion rather than as a work of prose.
That is why, despite not having read it in over a decade, I doubt I ever shall again. To read it again would be to demolish the foundations of my minds picture of this unusal book.
#14
Sir Thursday
- House Knight
-
- Group: High House Mafia
- Posts: 1,819
- Joined: 14-July 05
- Location:Enfield, UK
Posted 24 April 2006 - 04:36 PM
Tolkien can be praised simply for being a pioneer, but it is notable that his work has gained the attention of literary circles outside of the genre, something that his successors are finding hard to replicate. While I personally find Erikson superior to Tolkien, I can understand why the world at large would think differently. You cannot pick up Erikson without having read any other fantasy beforehand: you have to be prepared to face seemingly random details that won't make sense until later, a cloudy history that is hard to come to terms with and gradual revelations rather than complete ones. On the other hand, LOTR could very easily be one's first excursion into the genre, as it was mine.
This difference in accessibility is what allows the literary snobs to read Tolkien and find both the merits and flaws of his work. This is why Tolkien has far greater acclaim than Erikson and Martin, and always will have. It helps to be the first, but I think that Tolkien's fame is not simply because of that.
Vox
This difference in accessibility is what allows the literary snobs to read Tolkien and find both the merits and flaws of his work. This is why Tolkien has far greater acclaim than Erikson and Martin, and always will have. It helps to be the first, but I think that Tolkien's fame is not simply because of that.
Vox
Don't look now, but I think there's something weird attached to the bottom of my posts.
#15
Dolorous Menhir
- God
-
- Group: Wiki Contributor
- Posts: 4,550
- Joined: 31-January 06
Posted 24 April 2006 - 04:43 PM
I would group Martin with Tolkein in that respect, not with Erikson. Someone who has never read fantasy before can pick up aGoT and enjoy it without getting turned off by wizards and empires and gods. That's probably the reason he has become pre-eminent among contemporary fantasy authors.
#16
Agraba
- Emperor
-
- Group: Malaz Regular
- Posts: 732
- Joined: 09-November 05
Posted 24 April 2006 - 05:33 PM
Tolkien is the Isaac Newton of fantasy writing. The foremost genius of his time, in that field. But what Newton studied is now high school material by our standards.
But even then, there are still elements of Tolkien's works that writers of today just don't get, while trying to pass off his legacy. Tolkien can still pass off that mundane brutality in a fantasy setting that other authors fail to do. He successfully transmitted that sordid feeling of hoplessness at the battle in Book 3 (or 5, I should say). And the fact that Frodo finished his grand journey only to go to the Shire, and see the horror that was made of it was brilliant, I think. Something I wouldn't expect from someone like Robert Jordan, or J.K. Rowling.
But still, I like Erickson's work better.
But even then, there are still elements of Tolkien's works that writers of today just don't get, while trying to pass off his legacy. Tolkien can still pass off that mundane brutality in a fantasy setting that other authors fail to do. He successfully transmitted that sordid feeling of hoplessness at the battle in Book 3 (or 5, I should say). And the fact that Frodo finished his grand journey only to go to the Shire, and see the horror that was made of it was brilliant, I think. Something I wouldn't expect from someone like Robert Jordan, or J.K. Rowling.
But still, I like Erickson's work better.
#17
Brys
- Fist
-
- Group: Malaz Regular
- Posts: 218
- Joined: 02-August 05
Posted 24 April 2006 - 05:34 PM
I personally think that Erikson's quite a way ahead of Tolkien in lots of ways, but that's as much due to a relatively low opinion of Tolkien as due to my high opinion of Erikson. Erikson has a lot of conventional elements to his fantasy and uses a high magic setting - which is offputting to a lot of readers, especially non-fantasy readers, but I don't think that should have any bearing on the actual quality of the novels. I think there's only really one element in which Tolkien is excellent in, and that's the worldbuilding. Everything else is overly simplistic in his writing, and Moorcock was accurate in most of what he said about Tolkien - especially about its accessibility.
#18
Limaris
- Corporal
-
- Group: Malaz Regular
- Posts: 41
- Joined: 16-April 06
- Location:Sunny city of the Magpies
- Interests:puppies & long walks
Posted 24 April 2006 - 05:55 PM
How sad that the (opinion, though mostly fact :-) I speak for those in the UK who voted LoTR to be the nations favourite book, out of all genres nonetheless!) greatest book ever written has been consined to a shelf that is rather neglected as opposed to being the centre piece of a room.
Which it should be, given the general consensus that it was the "building blocks" for modern day fantasy, it is not unintersting that on a site of fans of Steven Erikson work I find that in the most part people prefer his work, it remind me of a friend at school whom I had the exact same discussion as we are having now, some time ago. He felt that the Steven Erikson works were better than Tolkien's, that he found it was far more complex.
Danya I find my views have changed, wisely so and down to the good points said thus far over the various times I have found myself in this discussion. I believe that there is no great difference in the complexity of both works. We cannot really deal with a trilogy by looking at one book! Therefore to obtain a better feel we consider all the books in the series. Thus we cannot exclude the twelve HoME, which I think steps up the complexity from the main trilogy, as does the complex twists and plot lines in the novels thus far in the Malazan series.
I could list them if you want, the droves of characters (good and significantly important) who have perished throughout Middle Earth and its other lands. I would point you to the Silmarillion, the Book of Lost Tales I and II, the Hobbit and the LoTR. Denethor, for example, Theoden for example, Hama for example, Turin for example Luthien, Beren, Haldir, Isildur, Boromir, Thorin Oakenshield, Dain Ironfoot, Balin, Kili, Fili, Elendil, Feanor to name but the tip of a mountain of deaths that were premature. You will notice that a few of these are indeed of a race granted with long life, Isildur belonged the Numernoreans granted long life by the Valar, the elves who were immortal to an extent and the dwarves who lived as long as early man.
Agreed these characters at the most were either good or evil, though some swayed between the two, and therefore I can sympathise with your point about the characters being inherently good or evil. I would like to recommend you read if not have a cursory look through the books surrounding the main LoTR trilogy as you will find that the universe Tolkien created has been written in great depths and the characters are far more detailed. With added details that perhaps the LoTR does not highlight in the trilogy. I would also suggest that Tolkien spent far more pages describing his characters than Erikson has done. He seems to introduce races where ever he wishes without a great deal of what they look like. (I speak this as a Malazan series novice, so I implore you to correct me if I am wrong).
"Pure subjectivity"- Now that you are right on to some extent! I am glad also you find some of what has been qouted, exaggerated as well as raising some perfect scenes to illustrate that Tolkien's work was not all cuddly!
This detail I think and lengths to which Tolkien went to achieve it would answer in part to your views Dolorous. The Sam and Frodo partnership was labouring, but only I think to show that this struggle physically and mentally in part should be given to the reader, I find that this very much brings you into the story and how the characters are feeling. It is these feelings of sadness and countless other emotions from the passages that wants us to read on, among other things of course. Their journey deserved a lot of pages.
I would also suggest that splitting one plot of so many characters into different plots with a few characters makes the entire book far more complex and a credit to the author if they can maintain the readers interest and bind all those diversions together at the end if they so wish. Perhaps Tolkien has failed here, for you say it killed it for you; no doubt many others feel the same. But again the similarity here with the Malazan series rises again, there is certainly not one plot of many characters in his series, but there are countless different little stories throughout! We are forever jumping from one group or individuals to another. Does this not kill it for you here in these books?
However an author must make a decision somewhere along the line that he cannot include an entire history of every race and character within the book, due to the sheer amount of work involved and the fact that your publisher would be decidedly miffed not to mention your readers! Thus some characters are annoyingly thin. The most annoying of which, who no-one has yet mentioned, is Tom Bombadil!!
However again I think you cannot say that Sauron is underwritten, including all the books associated with the LoTR (HoME) which I am in this discussion then Sauron is infact written in great detail. As for the Scouring of the Shire, it was a necessary step in the Shire's history. All to often (and which has pointed out here already) the Shire has been portrayed as a home to children, their perception of the outside world pathetic (however there are similarities here with the real word), thus the kufuffle with Saruman made the Shire a "man", alerting the folk to what really the outside world is like....being the first does have its advantages and disadvantages yes.
Despite this "need for speed" pushed upon him by publishers Tolkien did take 40 years to complete the entire series. This leads me onto Malarions point that it was so much as written from an idea, but out of love. I would have to agree in the most part with you there. To rebuke your points about the irritation and childishness of the Hobbits and the poorly formed characters including the Nazgul and WitchKing, the Dead army and the Balrog points I would repeat what I said earlier,
"However an author must make a decision somewhere along the line that he cannot include an entire history of every race and character within the book, due to the sheer amount of work involved and the fact that your publisher would be decidedly miffed not to mention your readers! Thus some characters are annoyingly thin. The most annoying of which, who no-one has yet mentioned, is Tom Bombadil!!
However again I think you cannot say that Sauron is underwritten, including all the books associated with the LoTR (HoME) which I am in this discussion then Sauron is infact written in great detail. As for the Scouring of the Shire, it was a necessary step in the Shire's history. All to often (and which has pointed out here already) the Shire has been portrayed as a home to children, their perception of the outside world pathetic (however there are similarities here with the real word), thus the kufuffle with Saruman made the Shire a "man", alerting the folk to what really the outside world is like"
There was for me a definite transition in the attitude within the Shire to life, especially to those Hobbits who were part of the Fellowship, they were decidedly more mature at the end. Perhaps one should read the HoME before reading the Hobbit then the LoTR trilogy.
You also say that the splitting of the Fellowship was more about covering more land than developing plot. The splitting of the Fellowship was the story! The medium through which he could introduce many other races into the struggle for Middle Earth. If they had been simply missed out then people would argue it is unrealistic because they weren't included! Just like Steven Erikson randomly jolts in new races and characters throughout the books.
The fact that almost every part of Middle Earth was shown was to show that everything was involved in the fate of Middle Earth.
For me Tolkien was far more fluent in the introduction of characters than Erikson and so I agree with the issues vox raises, it is only till later in some cases that characters and events are explained. Perhaps that it was makes people think the Malazan series is more complex? I also agree with Agraba, Tolkien is able to do what other fantasy authors cannot.
This moorcock I think needs to re-read the entire series of LoTR and HoME.
Which it should be, given the general consensus that it was the "building blocks" for modern day fantasy, it is not unintersting that on a site of fans of Steven Erikson work I find that in the most part people prefer his work, it remind me of a friend at school whom I had the exact same discussion as we are having now, some time ago. He felt that the Steven Erikson works were better than Tolkien's, that he found it was far more complex.
Danya I find my views have changed, wisely so and down to the good points said thus far over the various times I have found myself in this discussion. I believe that there is no great difference in the complexity of both works. We cannot really deal with a trilogy by looking at one book! Therefore to obtain a better feel we consider all the books in the series. Thus we cannot exclude the twelve HoME, which I think steps up the complexity from the main trilogy, as does the complex twists and plot lines in the novels thus far in the Malazan series.
I could list them if you want, the droves of characters (good and significantly important) who have perished throughout Middle Earth and its other lands. I would point you to the Silmarillion, the Book of Lost Tales I and II, the Hobbit and the LoTR. Denethor, for example, Theoden for example, Hama for example, Turin for example Luthien, Beren, Haldir, Isildur, Boromir, Thorin Oakenshield, Dain Ironfoot, Balin, Kili, Fili, Elendil, Feanor to name but the tip of a mountain of deaths that were premature. You will notice that a few of these are indeed of a race granted with long life, Isildur belonged the Numernoreans granted long life by the Valar, the elves who were immortal to an extent and the dwarves who lived as long as early man.
Agreed these characters at the most were either good or evil, though some swayed between the two, and therefore I can sympathise with your point about the characters being inherently good or evil. I would like to recommend you read if not have a cursory look through the books surrounding the main LoTR trilogy as you will find that the universe Tolkien created has been written in great depths and the characters are far more detailed. With added details that perhaps the LoTR does not highlight in the trilogy. I would also suggest that Tolkien spent far more pages describing his characters than Erikson has done. He seems to introduce races where ever he wishes without a great deal of what they look like. (I speak this as a Malazan series novice, so I implore you to correct me if I am wrong).
"Pure subjectivity"- Now that you are right on to some extent!
I am glad also you find some of what has been qouted, exaggerated as well as raising some perfect scenes to illustrate that Tolkien's work was not all cuddly!This detail I think and lengths to which Tolkien went to achieve it would answer in part to your views Dolorous. The Sam and Frodo partnership was labouring, but only I think to show that this struggle physically and mentally in part should be given to the reader, I find that this very much brings you into the story and how the characters are feeling. It is these feelings of sadness and countless other emotions from the passages that wants us to read on, among other things of course. Their journey deserved a lot of pages.
I would also suggest that splitting one plot of so many characters into different plots with a few characters makes the entire book far more complex and a credit to the author if they can maintain the readers interest and bind all those diversions together at the end if they so wish. Perhaps Tolkien has failed here, for you say it killed it for you; no doubt many others feel the same. But again the similarity here with the Malazan series rises again, there is certainly not one plot of many characters in his series, but there are countless different little stories throughout! We are forever jumping from one group or individuals to another. Does this not kill it for you here in these books?
However an author must make a decision somewhere along the line that he cannot include an entire history of every race and character within the book, due to the sheer amount of work involved and the fact that your publisher would be decidedly miffed not to mention your readers! Thus some characters are annoyingly thin. The most annoying of which, who no-one has yet mentioned, is Tom Bombadil!!
However again I think you cannot say that Sauron is underwritten, including all the books associated with the LoTR (HoME) which I am in this discussion then Sauron is infact written in great detail. As for the Scouring of the Shire, it was a necessary step in the Shire's history. All to often (and which has pointed out here already) the Shire has been portrayed as a home to children, their perception of the outside world pathetic (however there are similarities here with the real word), thus the kufuffle with Saruman made the Shire a "man", alerting the folk to what really the outside world is like....being the first does have its advantages and disadvantages yes.
Despite this "need for speed" pushed upon him by publishers Tolkien did take 40 years to complete the entire series. This leads me onto Malarions point that it was so much as written from an idea, but out of love. I would have to agree in the most part with you there. To rebuke your points about the irritation and childishness of the Hobbits and the poorly formed characters including the Nazgul and WitchKing, the Dead army and the Balrog points I would repeat what I said earlier,
"However an author must make a decision somewhere along the line that he cannot include an entire history of every race and character within the book, due to the sheer amount of work involved and the fact that your publisher would be decidedly miffed not to mention your readers! Thus some characters are annoyingly thin. The most annoying of which, who no-one has yet mentioned, is Tom Bombadil!!
However again I think you cannot say that Sauron is underwritten, including all the books associated with the LoTR (HoME) which I am in this discussion then Sauron is infact written in great detail. As for the Scouring of the Shire, it was a necessary step in the Shire's history. All to often (and which has pointed out here already) the Shire has been portrayed as a home to children, their perception of the outside world pathetic (however there are similarities here with the real word), thus the kufuffle with Saruman made the Shire a "man", alerting the folk to what really the outside world is like"
There was for me a definite transition in the attitude within the Shire to life, especially to those Hobbits who were part of the Fellowship, they were decidedly more mature at the end. Perhaps one should read the HoME before reading the Hobbit then the LoTR trilogy.
You also say that the splitting of the Fellowship was more about covering more land than developing plot. The splitting of the Fellowship was the story! The medium through which he could introduce many other races into the struggle for Middle Earth. If they had been simply missed out then people would argue it is unrealistic because they weren't included! Just like Steven Erikson randomly jolts in new races and characters throughout the books.
The fact that almost every part of Middle Earth was shown was to show that everything was involved in the fate of Middle Earth.
For me Tolkien was far more fluent in the introduction of characters than Erikson and so I agree with the issues vox raises, it is only till later in some cases that characters and events are explained. Perhaps that it was makes people think the Malazan series is more complex? I also agree with Agraba, Tolkien is able to do what other fantasy authors cannot.
This moorcock I think needs to re-read the entire series of LoTR and HoME.
#19 Guest_Danyah_*
Posted 24 April 2006 - 06:33 PM
I never read HoME, and I gather they were published 10 years after his death, so I have no opinion on those. I do have to say that the people you mentioned dying, Denethor, Theoden, Boromir, Isildur, Thorin, all had to die IMO because of retrebution, they erred, thus earning death.
Luthien and Beren didn't really die, he somehow found an Eriksonesque solution for the two (the only one in the book).
Anyway, I first read the Hobbit when I was eight, LotR when I was 10, and the Silmarillion after that. I have done several rereads since then, I got older, read other authors, and started to look at books in a more critical way.
Some of the items that were bashed, the hobbits, I actually liked. They are small town, but not stupid. I liked the Mhybe too, though lots of people thought she was whining.
Sure, Tolkien was in the right place, on the right time, he was used by artists and hippies all over the world, and has since then inspired and influenced many other subcultures. Succes means a broad audience, you can't please everyone, so there are people who don't like his work, because of a variety of reasons or just because he is succesfull.
His prose both attracts people and turns them down. Either way, his works aren't of low quality. A lot of people are turned down by the vast army of inconsistensies in SE's books. Still, the story is great if you only correct the mistakes in your head.
One last remark: the hobbits first appeared in The Hobbit (Duh), which was a children's book, hence the songs and stuff. If you get me to rate the hobbit it's way above Narnia and Harry Potter.
Luthien and Beren didn't really die, he somehow found an Eriksonesque solution for the two (the only one in the book).
Anyway, I first read the Hobbit when I was eight, LotR when I was 10, and the Silmarillion after that. I have done several rereads since then, I got older, read other authors, and started to look at books in a more critical way.
Some of the items that were bashed, the hobbits, I actually liked. They are small town, but not stupid. I liked the Mhybe too, though lots of people thought she was whining.
Sure, Tolkien was in the right place, on the right time, he was used by artists and hippies all over the world, and has since then inspired and influenced many other subcultures. Succes means a broad audience, you can't please everyone, so there are people who don't like his work, because of a variety of reasons or just because he is succesfull.
His prose both attracts people and turns them down. Either way, his works aren't of low quality. A lot of people are turned down by the vast army of inconsistensies in SE's books. Still, the story is great if you only correct the mistakes in your head.
One last remark: the hobbits first appeared in The Hobbit (Duh), which was a children's book, hence the songs and stuff. If you get me to rate the hobbit it's way above Narnia and Harry Potter.
#20
Werthead
- Ascendant
-
- Group: Malaz Regular
- Posts: 3,960
- Joined: 14-November 05
Posted 24 April 2006 - 09:17 PM
The relentless bashing of Tolkien that goes on across many boards is somewhat tiresome. He was writing in the 1930s and 1940s for an audience of that time. Mieville and Moorcock attacking him smacks of mild dissatisfaction with the view that all fantasy stems from Tolkien has become prevalent. That's fair enough, but that's the fault of the people who came after Tolkien (mainly Eddings and Brooks), not Tolkien himself.
I find Gene Wolfe's (a better author than Moorcock) essay on Tolkien to be quite interesting, reiterating the subtext of the book (which can be boiled down to 'change', for good or ill) in interesting terms.
In terms of depth of character, Erikson outshines Tolkien to some degree, even whilst also using archetypes himself rather than true characterisation (of the like that Martin indulges in). In terms of worldbuilding, they are closely tied. The mythology of Middle-earth is far more compelling and the depth and believability of history in Middle-earth is vastly superior (although compared to Middle-earth, we know comparatively little about Malazworld's history). Yet Erikson's world has somewhat greater breadth. There's far more locations, far more characters, far more races, but a corresponding lack of depth to those races in many key areas. In terms of emotional power, they are closely tied, Erikson just nudging ahead due to the climax of DHG and MoI. As GRR Martin has said, Tolkien should also have left Gandalf dead.
I find Gene Wolfe's (a better author than Moorcock) essay on Tolkien to be quite interesting, reiterating the subtext of the book (which can be boiled down to 'change', for good or ill) in interesting terms.
In terms of depth of character, Erikson outshines Tolkien to some degree, even whilst also using archetypes himself rather than true characterisation (of the like that Martin indulges in). In terms of worldbuilding, they are closely tied. The mythology of Middle-earth is far more compelling and the depth and believability of history in Middle-earth is vastly superior (although compared to Middle-earth, we know comparatively little about Malazworld's history). Yet Erikson's world has somewhat greater breadth. There's far more locations, far more characters, far more races, but a corresponding lack of depth to those races in many key areas. In terms of emotional power, they are closely tied, Erikson just nudging ahead due to the climax of DHG and MoI. As GRR Martin has said, Tolkien should also have left Gandalf dead.
Visit The Wertzone for reviews of SF&F books, DVDs and computer games!
"Try standing out in a winter storm all night and see how tough you are. Start with that. Then go into a bar and pick a fight and see how tough you are. And then go home and break crockery over your head. Start with those three and you'll be good to go."
- Bruce Campbell on how to be as cool as he is
- Bruce Campbell on how to be as cool as he is
