[Mane of Chaos]

potsherds, I have to say that I agree with Aneirin, though I must admit that I am very much biased. I do believe that Erikson is an author who spends a lot of time building his world, that he does give a lot of depth to it, that he has created a long and detailed history for it, but I do not think that we can compare it to Tolkien's, at least at this very moment. I'd rather wait for the last book of the series to appear before I start comparing Tolkien's Arda to Erikson's Wu, cause even right now we still know too little about Wu's past. There are too many questions, too many mysteries, and even some serious inconsistencies. And believe me, in Tolkien's works there are no inconsistencies. He was so dedicated to perfecting Arda that he gave a lot of attention to even small details. And I most certainly do not think that the unimportant, acorrding to you at least, customs, that Tolkien describes in some of his stories, essays and notes, should not be taken into account. Because such things give even more depth to his world. Erikson has created a lot of races, a lot of characters, but do we really know a lot about any of them? I admit that his works have an even more massive scope than Tolkien's, but they simply do not focus on any of the races, on any of the characters. We get to learn a lot about some races, but we know so very little about others. And until this changes, until he manages to give even more information about the customs, the traditions, the beliefs of the races inhabiting his world, I personally will consider Tolkien a superior world-builder. But I wouldn't say that Tolkien is a better writer, because I have enjoyed Erikson's books as much as Tolkien's, though Tolkien is my favourite author. And believe me, I respect Erikson very much.

[Mane of Chaos]

Maybe it's just a matter of taste? I'm into myths and this is the main reason why I am an admirer of Tolkien's works. Because The Silmarillion is true myth, and Erikson's Malazan Book of the Fallen just cannot be considered myth, whatever some of you might say.

[Brys]

I'd agree with that - Tolkien is very much writing a mythology for his world, while Erikson's writing a history - there's supposed to be conflicting evidence, inconsistencies etc as you'd find in the real world (of course, some of the inconsistencies aren't supposed to be there, but some of them - as between the sources at the beginning of chapters - are intentional). There are very brief elements of myth in the Malazan series, but the focus is clearly on a historical approach - ie instead of writing a myth, he writes about the effect of myth on a certain culture.

[fan_83]

tolkien is writing a mythology cos there are characters in his work that has been there since the beginning.. if i recall correctly, elrond and the lady of the forest were already alive, when the elves came to middle earth.. his mythology is a true history from their perspective,while erikson is oding the standard conflicting history

[Mane of Chaos]

I'm glad that we agree.
Oh, by the way, fan 83, Elrond was born to Earendil and Elwing at the end of the First Age, while Galadriel is much older than him, because she was a contemporary of Feanor, the greatest of the Noldorin smiths.

[Illuyankas]

What about Rake? K'rul and the other Elders? They were there at the beginning too, they just haven't described what's happened in the intervening years - yet.

[Mane of Chaos]

Illuyankas, I don't know about you, but I personally believe that there is a certain air to mythology that the Malazan Book of the Fallen simply does not have. Greek mythology, Finnish mythology, Norwegian mythology all have this kind of air and Tolkien's The Silmarillion has it as well. I'm not sure if you'll agree with me, but this is my opinion. So even if Erikson were to describe the creation of his world and its earliest history, the series still wouldn't have the air of mythology.

[fan_83]

illu the elder gods are there, but they aren;t talking while elrond and the others are.. thats waht make tolkiens work so detailed.. he has character or notes that enable the characters to talk.. while erikson work require there to be ambigiouty

[Illuyankas]

The thing is they aren't talking. They're described in an novel along with the events they were involved with. They talk in the books as much as SE's do. The Silmarillion is basically a companion book to the main series - yes, Tolkien may not have intended it as such, but that's what it comes across as, a book with extra content for the Lord of the Rings. SE will release an encyclopedia with similiar stuff as well, and that will add to what the Elder Gods will 'say'.

[Mane of Chaos]

Does he really have an explanation for everything? Sometimes it seems that his world has become too complicated even for him to handle. Oh, Tolkien's works are not vague. Everything in them is explained.

[Whelp]

Maknavox said:

Im not seeing why tolkiens work is more mythical? Maybe its because tolkien is more vague. Like ive said before, some of tolkiens creatures/characters/whatever, are just there...
Erikson has a explaination about everything, which i like much more.

Imho, Tolkien's characters have a well-built relation pattern and interaction - something that Erikson still lacks (no doubt mostly because the MBotF is incomplete). Also, I would agree with Mane of Chaos that the air of mythology is missing from Erikson's work, as it is imho more mechanical, not as vivid.

[Mane of Chaos]

I'm glad that you agree with me, Whelp! Oh, by the way, I do not think that Erikson's books are inferior to Tolkien's just because they lack the air of mythology. I like them equally.

[Sir Thursday]

Brys said:

I'd agree with that - Tolkien is very much writing a mythology for his world, while Erikson's writing a history - there's supposed to be conflicting evidence, inconsistencies etc as you'd find in the real world (of course, some of the inconsistencies aren't supposed to be there, but some of them - as between the sources at the beginning of chapters - are intentional). There are very brief elements of myth in the Malazan series, but the focus is clearly on a historical approach - ie instead of writing a myth, he writes about the effect of myth on a certain culture.

Hmm...I'm not sure I agree with you on this. As far as I can see, Tolkien wrote a history of Arya. Certainly there is the description of how the world was created in the Silmarillion, but it is presented as fact. To me, that makes it a historical account, rather than the mythology of Arya. As someone (I can't remember who off the top of my head) stated earlier, you could say Tolkien wrote Middle-Earth as a mythology. There is a big distinction to be made between this and writing a mythology for Middle-Earth.

Erikson, on the other hand, has created multiple conflicting stories of the world's creation etc., as you pointed out. To me, these are myths as I understand the word - there is no certainty for an objective observer as to exactly how the world came into being: was it, as the Tiste believe, Mother Dark that came first? Or, as other sources imply, something else? That neither the inhabitants of Wu nor the readers of MBotF can agree makes it myth, as opposed to the facts that Tolkien laid down at the beginning of the Silmarillion.

Perhaps this is merely a difference in our understandings of the words myth and history, as I notice that you have used essentially the same facts to come to the opposite conclusion.

Sir Thursday

[Dagger]

Mane of Chaos said:

I'm glad that we agree.
Elrond was born to Earendil and Elwing at the end of the First Age, while Galadriel is much older than him, because she was a contemporary of Feanor, the greatest of the Noldorin smiths.

I think she was actually one of Feanor's sisters. Part of a defiant power-hungry family. Which makes her refusal of the Ring all the more poignant. And that's the kind of detail that makes Tolkien so interesting to me.

[Werthead]

Galadriel is the daughter of Finarfin, which makes her Feanor's niece in the published, canonical Silmarillion (which I consider canon on the basis of we're-never-going-to-get-anything-else).

Tolkien, very, very late in his life, did map out alternate histories for Galadriel to make her more important in The Silmarillion and thus tie the story closer to that of Lord of the Rings, and in one of these possibilities he did consider directly making her Feanor, Fingolfin and Finarfin's sister, but he did not get any further with this train of thought before he died. I think that would have been a mistake though. Galadriel is virtually invisible in the published The Silmarillion and raising her to the status of supporting player would have been a good idea (as well as perhaps giving a better account of Cirdan, Celeborn, Thranduil and Elrond, all of who play major roles in the later Middle-earth books), but not to a central starring role, which would have detracted from the real main characters.