What's an "Aragorn Style" ranger?

[Reynard]

Sorry guys, I'm just not interested in reading Tolkien, regardless of how important LotR is for you. Although I have been looking into Swords & Devilry, and the various Conan stories.


No, I've seen that about three times.

Read what you want of course, but if you are interested in reading material to inspire your D&D, I would recommend Howard, Leiber and Anderson's fantasies before Tolkien. Tolkien is a great author and LotR is defining literature for the fantasy genre, but it isn't very D&D (though The Honing is a lot closer to gaming style fantasy).

 

[ferratus]

Sorry guys, I'm just not interested in reading Tolkien, regardless of how important LotR is for you guys. Although I have been looking into Swords & Devilry, and the various Conan stories.

Tolkien isn't for everyone. You don't read Tolkien stories for cinematic action, romance, sex or thrilling pacing.

You read Tolkien because you enjoy a good slow read and the poetry of the English language. You read Tolkien because you enjoy thinking about deep philosophical, moral and religious themes woven into the narrative. You read Tolkien because you want an ocean of depth informing the story you are currently reading.

The problem with the story elements of first paragraph, is that if Tolkien included them he would destroy the story elements in the second paragraph. That's why I don't accept the idea that "Tolkien needed a tougher editor" or "Tolkien is long-winded". It is also the reason while the movies bear a superficial resemblence to plot of the books, it doesn't really tell the story.

Tolkien doesn't have to be for everyone. It just means you have to be a particular type of person, in a particular mood, or at a particular stage in your life. But if you are, it will change you forever, as all great works of literature do.

Robert E. Howard is good too. His prose is purple, and he'll never change the person you are, but it has a great amount of vitality to it. Appearantly, Tolkien was familiar with it.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Read what you want of course, but if you are interested in reading material to inspire your D&D, I would recommend Howard, Leiber and Anderson's fantasies before Tolkien.

Also, E.R. Burroughs.

 

[Rechan]

At least read The Hobbit. It was written for children should be at your reading level...

I own the Hobbit (and do plan to get around to it). But my issue with Tolkien is 1) his habit of going completely offroad to wax on about leaf structures or some other unrelated tangent for multiple pages. 2) All that damn singing. Yes, he was trying to recreate storytelling through bardic tales of yore, but no thanks. As an editor/writer, these both grind my teeth. So it becomes a Tedious read.

Not counting the books I set down because I didn't like/got distracted, I finished roughly 26 books last year, so it's not like I'm a stranger to reading. Although looking at the list that I did read, very little was strictly fantasy, aside from Dark Jenny. Unless you count Urban Fantasy (modern-day wizards and monsters and the like) which is my favorite genre.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Tolkien isn't for everyone. You don't read Tolkien stories for cinematic action, romance, sex or thrilling pacing.

You read Tolkien because you enjoy a good slow read and the poetry of the English language. You read Tolkien because you enjoy thinking about deep philosophical, moral and religious themes woven into the narrative. You read Tolkien because you want an ocean of depth informing the story you are currently reading.

More immediate to the need of "gaming" inspiration, read Tolkien if you want to learn what good world building looks like.

 

[Gentlegamer]

I own the Hobbit (and do plan to get around to it). But my issue with Tolkien is 1) his habit of going completely offroad to wax on about leaf structures or some other unrelated tangent for multiple pages.

There is no such thing in Tolkien.

2) All that damn singing. Yes, he was trying to recreate storytelling through bardic tales of yore, but no thanks.

This is a sign of our (collective) poor modern taste: we no longer appreciate (narrative) poetry, and can only handle prose.

For me, Illiad, Odessey, Aeneid, Beowulf, Divine Comedy, Paradise Lost, etc are pure joy.

 

[Anselyn]

Although I have been looking into Swords & Devilry, and the various Conan stories.

I recommend Jack Vance. Not for Vancian magic but for the anti-hero Cugel. Vance describes him as "a man of many capabilities, with a disposition at once flexible and pertinacious. He was long of leg, deft of hand, light of finger, soft of tongue ... His darting eye, long inquisitive nose and droll mouth gave his somewhat lean and bony face an expression of vivacity, candor, and affability. He had known many vicissitudes, gaining therefrom a suppleness, a fine discretion, a mastery of both bravado and stealth." [From Wikipedia on "The Eyes of the Overworld"]

I only came to these recently but they're great fun.

No, I've seen that about three times.

And Life of Brian too, I hope. It's about the Edition Wars. Splitters!

 

[Gentlegamer]

I recommend Jack Vance. Not for Vancian magic but for the anti-hero Cugel. Vance describes him as "a man of many capabilities, with a disposition at once flexible and pertinacious. He was long of leg, deft of hand, light of finger, soft of tongue ... His darting eye, long inquisitive nose and droll mouth gave his somewhat lean and bony face an expression of vivacity, candor, and affability. He had known many vicissitudes, gaining therefrom a suppleness, a fine discretion, a mastery of both bravado and stealth." [From Wikipedia on "The Eyes of the Overworld"]

I only came to these recently but they're great fun.

How could I forget Vance?!?!

Also, the "Harold Shea" (typically collected as The Incomplete Enchanter) stories of Camp & Pratt. The story "The Roaring Trumpet" was the direct inspiration for Against the Giants, as well as the sympathetic spell components (Verbal, Material, Somatic) of AD&D magic.

 

[Iosue]

There is no such thing in Tolkien.
This is a sign of our (collective) poor modern taste: we no longer appreciate (narrative) poetry, and can only handle prose.

For me, Illiad, Odessey, Aeneid, Beowulf, Divine Comedy, Paradise Lost, etc are pure joy.

I enjoy Beowulf in the original Englisc, and I still tended to skip past Tolkien's songs.

But that's not really a criticism. I love Tolkien's prose, and I love Lord of the Rings. I read LotR nearly once a year, skipping the songs more often than not. I say, if the songs are not one's bag, skip 'em. Hell, skip the environmental exposition. There was a time, in my romantic youth, when desiring high saga above all else, I used to skip whole Frodo and Sam chapters in the Two Towers! Lord of the Rings is dense -- and even if you're not so interested in the gold, silver, marble of quartz, mine it deep enough and you'll find mithril. And you may find those parts will bring you back to parts you skimmed through earlier.

 

[Reynard]

There is no such thing in Tolkien.

This. People that suggest Tolkien wrote like this are either completely unfamiliar with his work or are misrepresenting it on purpose. I think it is most likely that most people get bored having to think there way through literature so they tend to criticise literary authors as "long winded."