[McLovin]

Yeah, though to RJ's credit, making the Dragon a person rather than an actual dragon was a nice subversion of expectations.

[McLovin]

Maknavox said:

I like the overuse of dragons. It gives my the impression that there is always someone stronger then that farmboy with the huge sword

Huh. And isn't funny how that farmboy, with his huge sword, always has to penetrate the depths of a dark cave to slay the dragon? Oh, Freud is just spinning in his grave....

[Dolorous Menhir]

I always thought it was pretty cool that everyone in WoT can happily proclaim Rand the Dragon Reborn, but when they unfurl the dragon banner - with a picture of a dragon on it - everyone goes "what's that, a snake with legs?"

Anyway, I like Dragons.

And there are plenty of original races out there. Cactacae, khepri, the ab-dead, the Tistes (even though vulnerable to some elf comparisons), Jaghut (very original), KCCM (intelligent dinosaurs is quite innovative), I think even the Ogier are more than simple giant derivatives. And that's just from three authors.

[Malarion]

Maknavox said:

Malarion
Mesopotamian? Ive missed that. what god is tiam then?

Tiamat.
A primeval mother dragon believed to embody the forces of chaos (sound familiar?).
She was slain when she fought the other gods (Draconian soletaken?) and her body was used to create the heavens and the oceans.
Ok, its not a perfect fit but its damned close.


"Actually, orc is an Anglo-Saxon word meaning 'demon' or 'evil spirit'. It is derived from the Latin Orcus, the name of a Roman god of the underworld comparable to Pluto."

Interesting, although, reading the Histories of Middle Earth I got the impression he didn't derive it from this, at least consciously. It seemed more to evolve into the word. But thats going back to when he called the Noldor gnomes etc.

[Aneirin]

Aimless said:

And what makes for a supreme world-builder, Aneirin?

The Silmarillion does, Aimless .

morgoth said:

But anyways. Though the tolkien question is interesting, this is a thread discussing stereothypical fantasy races, not the collected works of Tolkien. There are threads discussing those works, and discussions such as that between Aneirin and Maknavox should be conducted there

This is true.

Malorion said:

"Actually, orc is an Anglo-Saxon word meaning 'demon' or 'evil spirit'. It is derived from the Latin Orcus, the name of a Roman god of the underworld comparable to Pluto."

Interesting, although, reading the Histories of Middle Earth I got the impression he didn't derive it from this, at least consciously. It seemed more to evolve into the word. But thats going back to when he called the Noldor gnomes etc.

I'm pretty sure Tolkien's use of the word 'Orc' was derived from Beowulf. However what Werthead said makes sense, as in Beowulf Orcs were undead, so that would be where the word originally came from.

[Brys]

raymondluxuryyacht said:

D&D based their races on Tolkein. They had to change some things in order to not get sued. For example, what are clearly hobbits were called halflings in D&D. I'd say their elves are pretty close: extremely long lived, thin, very dexterious, excellent archers, etc. The only real difference is Tolkein's elves are basically immortal, in D&D I believe they will eventually die of old age after a ridiculous amount of time.

I was thinking more of the various distinctions between the different types of elves, which is where there is significant divergence. But talking of not getting sued - they've been very lucky, with how closely they copied both Tolkien and Vance (Tolkien more for the races, Vance for pretty much everything else).

[polishgenius]

I love Mieville's races. Not that most of them are completely invented, drawing on various mythologies as they do (but not more so than Tolkien, for example - inspiration really), but they're done and and executed so well. Khepri, Garuda, Anophelii... all with their own believable rules, social divides, personalities...

[fan_83]

for those who called tolkiens work typical.. you should keep in mind that tolkien wrote it in the 50's while the rest of the modern writers are in our time.. so the standard good farmboy go on quest and kill big baddie is mroe original with tolkien than its with the modern writers.. some of us seems to want to compare the different groups of writers based on when they read the book adn not when ti was published.

it is fair to say that tolkien work may not be your favourite.. but to claim any other fantasy writer to be a better world builder is an insult..
otehr writers may have better way of writing(one that you prefer) but the amount of details that goes into tolkien's worldbuidling is unrivalled since then.. until you can provide proof in terms of number of books dedicated solely to flesh out the history of a world, tolkien is still king at world building

one should also keep in mind that tolkien's work seems boring ot us now bcasue of the phrases and prose that he uses, his command of language and the usage of language at that time is different than ours, his is a mroe formal way of writing that seems boring..

[Murrin]

fan_83 said:

one should also keep in mind that tolkien's work seems boring ot us now bcasue of the phrases and prose that he uses, his command of language and the usage of language at that time is different than ours, his is a mroe formal way of writing that seems boring..

I find Tolkien's writing in the first book of the trilogy incredibly boring. And yet I was fascinated by Eddison's The Worm Ouroboros (1929), Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1818), and Peake's Gormenghast (published contemporaneously with LotR), all of which use, to varying levels, outdated modes of language.

[polishgenius]

Oh, ffs. Don't tell me that I'm being insulting when I say Tolkien might not be as unrivalled a worldbuilder as you claim. I love Tolkien's world. He was great at building the mythos and backstory. Not so much at making it seem as if there was events beyond the what he wrote. That's just the way he built his world. It's different. It's not an insult.
On the other hand, (taking Mieville again), he (while his word does have a detailed history outside of what's published) concentrates on building realistic places, and people, and filling in the rest for us with little details and mentions.


About the amount of books others have published - so Tolkien's are published. Does that automatically preclude other authors from having written theirs? No.

[Aimless]

Aneirin said:

The Silmarillion does, Aimless .

And what makes for a good answer, you Bela-sworn pig?

Seriously, I remember next to nothing of what I read of Silmarillion. So, what is it that does it for you? Lots of mythology? Detailed history? How about a real natural history? How about a world that is fairly solid scientifically?

There are many paths you can take. You can't create a real world through any of them--no human can, at present--but you can cover different aspects, and, to me, any path is good enough as long as you walk it with style

I consider Eddings to be an excellent world-builder... of a certain kind

Cheers you nutters!

-- P

[Aneirin]

Aimless said:

And what makes for a good answer, you Bela-sworn pig?

Facetiousness does, you Paah-cursed donkey!

How about we make a new thread for this though? If you want to do that now I'll post in it tomorrow, otherwise I'll make one then myself.

[Valgard]

I would just like to add that whilst many people have created a language. All that the vast majority have managed to do is create a small number of random words to use in certain places e.g. Warcraft where the orc language appears to consist almost entirely of Daboo and Zogzog etc. There is no structure no grammer nothing that makes a language viable. A large number of fantasy authors do this to give the seeming of a different world etc. and this is fone but they are not languages. Tolkien built the languages up from nothing they have real grammar and can be learnt and spoken as a real language that is why they are so impressive and unlike any other fantasy authors creations.

The silmarillion is infact a mythology for england. As with the advent of christianity the english lost many of their folk tales and mythologies, whereas the Irish and Scots etc. still have many of the ancient celtic lengends and myths. So he set about writing the silmarillion and unfinished tales etc.

These books are unrivalled in their depth of exploration of the world. There is so much to them. They are not easy reads, but they are well worth it in my opinion. I must admit I prefer other worlds such as Erikson's, Martin's and Bakker's, but they do not have the same level of depth that middle earth has. They may do in time as more is written of their worlds but at the moment Tolkein has more.

Also tolkien's magic is in fact very close to the old anglo-saxon beliefs in how magic worked. It some of the scenes in unfinshed tales are just astounding you here the peotry in the words almost like it should be sung. (Although Tolkien should stay away from writng songs as he cannot do that very well).

[Valgard]

Also back on thread the there are places where having the stereotypical races is fine, but I do agree that they are over used and new authors that can't be bothered to invent something new or even just a new take on an old race is very annoying. D&D has a lot to answer for with this. Having played it for many years they have made the basic races set in their ways and with only a small variation between the various settings that were brought out.

I disagree that the forest children are elves. They always struck me as being much closer to faries from the old english/germanic traditions, like in Johnathon Strange and Mr Norell, where they were particually well done.

The No-men are not elves in my opinion though I can see why you would say that. They fulfil a similar role in many ways, but the non-men always felt different to the elves more aggressive and less culturally developped than the elves are supposed to be.

[Wry]

fan_83 said:

it is fair to say that tolkien work may not be your favourite.. but to claim any other fantasy writer to be a better world builder is an insult..
otehr writers may have better way of writing(one that you prefer) but the amount of details that goes into tolkien's worldbuidling is unrivalled since then.. until you can provide proof in terms of number of books dedicated solely to flesh out the history of a world, tolkien is still king at world building

You do realise that those books are mostly just his personal notes and correspondance, published by his son years after his death? If someone took eriksons notes, organised them and published them would that make him the king of world building? You can be sure that between SE and ICE they must have a huge amount of back story worked out to cover 15 books.

Also those notes of Tolkien were hardly meant by him to be published as they are... you're probably doing him an injustice calling them "his world".