A Critique of the LotR BOOKS

[Desdichado]

I was under the impression that Tolkien was inventing langauges pretty much non stop since he was about 11. In one of his essays he pretty much refers to the fact that in inventing a language you spawn a mythology. I don't know when exactly he started either the first elements of the mythology or the languages but the impression I had was that they developed in tandem. If anything its more likely the langauges came first due to the way Tolkien constructed his story telling elements.

Yes. I believe that's also what I said -- he developed the languages and the "Lost Tales" i.e.; "Prototype Silmarillion" together. He had been playing around with languages since he was a little, but he had no concept of anything similar to elvish until he was developing the lost tales along with them.

 

[jester47]

I disagree. I think that plot and character remain as important in fantasy as most other novel-dependant genres, but that setting takes on an increased role, particularly for fantastic worlds, environs, cultures, etc. This is where a lot of writers stumble. Many take so much time and put so much effort in creating a world that they lose their characters and plots (and, more importantly, in my mind, the human condition) in their tales.

Then there are those who make an equally heinous mistake: those who don't flesh out their worlds enough on the front end, thereby never effectively allowing more sophisticated readers to suspend their disbelief and become immersed in the story. Terry Goodkind is an excellent example of this as he's apparently createed stuff for his world as he's written more books... and most of it isn't particularly original.

I think most writers who fail in the latter error, poor world design, are also lousy character writers.

Thats a good point. Where Ferret says that Setting is the most important thing in fantasy, I think after reading what you said that it is equally important. But the trap of working so much on setting and loosing characters happens so much that it has sort of defined the genre. Goodkind, Martin, Jordan. They are marked and they only get one novel to save thier bottoms in my mind.

Aaron.

 

[Desdichado]

Thats a good point. Where Ferret says that Setting is the most important thing in fantasy, I think after reading what you said that it is equally important. But the trap of working so much on setting and loosing characters happens so much that it has sort of defined the genre. Goodkind, Martin, Jordan. They are marked and they only get one novel to save thier bottoms in my mind.

I don't think Jordan is particularly guilty of losing characters in the setting -- rather he spends interminably long bouts of character development to the point that readers start to get bored with them.

 

[The Serge]

I don't see Jordan or Martin as guilty of losing characters or settings in their works. Jordan's flaws come from having too many characters and a tendancy to fall in love with writing a lot material that seems to go nowhere... In a sense, Jordan overcharacterizes his characters (how many times do we need to see Nynaeve lose her temper and think about why she lost her temper and then get more upset because she lost her temper in the first place). But Jordan clearly has a very deep world view, deeper, I think, than Tolkien's. The fact that he has an entire book on The Wheel of Time that discusses the world apart from the books (written in text-book format, no less!) is a testament to his world building talents.

Martin's flaws tend to revolve around... Well, off the top of my head, I can't think of any. I love the handling of characters and the obvious depth of his world to date. Indeed, I think he's a stronger, more comeptent writer who handles characterization in a more sophisticated manner than Jordan. Still, if one doesn't like the fairly relative philosophical nature of his narrative to date, and the non-heroic aspects of the work, then Martin's a tough pill to swallow.

Goodkind, though... Wow. Talk about lousy. It's obvious that Goodkind didn't have an overall concept for this world. Initially, we have the evocative names of three sections in his continent: Westlands (which surprisingly lies in the western most part of the continent), Midlands (you'll be surprised to know that this is in the middle of the continent), and D'Hara (which is where the initial badguys come from. Another surprise). We see no major cities. I mean, once we get into the Midlands, we encounter what we find out a novel later is a small kingdom and the Mud People... whose leader looks nothing like the rest of them and is the Bird Man... Yeah. And then, in subsequent books, we find out that there's another continent that stretches for miles and miles and miles that no one knew anything about because of some mystical barrier. Beyond this barrier are a bunch of women who have a completely new form of magic different from the additive and subtractive magic composed of manipulating existing elements. These women live together in a big building where they train other women and some men who never age. Does any of this sound familiar? I could go on, but what this boils down to is Goodkind's poor handling of his world and how he just tacks on stuff (which is often very similar to other popular, contemporary writers). I won't get into his poor characterization.

But, why should I complain? I've bought all of his books but the most recent one, reading to make sure that I don't make the same mistakes he makes.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

But Jordan clearly has a very deep world view, deeper, I think, than Tolkien's. The fact that he has an entire book on The Wheel of Time that discusses the world apart from the books (written in text-book format, no less!) is a testament to his world building talents.

Eddings has done the same, but I don't think either Eddings' or Jordan's worldviews match up to Tolkien's. Tolkien has an immensely developed history, mythology, geography, cultures, etc that are linked to a remarkable depth by his study and development of language -- a field in which I believe he is unmatched among fiction writers. The Silmarillion, Books of Lost Tales, Book of Unfinished Tales, LotR Appendices, etc are a tremendous amount of additional depth.

The difference, of course, is that the worlds of Jordan and Eddings are much more visible to the reader than that of Tolkien, since they took the time and effort to publish their background material (something we wouldn't have at all from Tolkien except for his son's editting efforts, and from what I understand even the currently published work doesn't encompass all his writings). Eddings and Jordan have a financial incentives to do so, since they're full-time writers; I don't think financial gain from his writing was ever one of Tolkien's incentives.

If you'd said Jordan's background material is more polished, I'd agree -- if only because he had the time and interest to polish the material. For more depth, my vote's to Tolkien.

 

[Vocenoctum]

The difference, of course, is that the worlds of Jordan and Eddings are much more visible to the reader than that of Tolkien, since they took the time and effort to publish their background material (something we wouldn't have at all from Tolkien except for his son's editting efforts, and from what I understand even the currently published work doesn't encompass all his writings). Eddings and Jordan have a financial incentives to do so, since they're full-time writers; I don't think financial gain from his writing was ever one of Tolkien's incentives.

A book about Gandalf like Belgarath the sorcerer could have been fun.
But, I'm kind of glad Tolkien didn't go too far. Eddings really has run the well dry, IMO, and I won't even bother picking up the new series of his. The Belgariad was fun light reading, but Redemption of Althaus was boring and repetitive. It's like he has the formula and just keeps reusing it over and over...

 

[Hypersmurf]

Eddings really has run the well dry, IMO, and I won't even bother picking up the new series of his. The Belgariad was fun light reading, but Redemption of Althaus was boring and repetitive. It's like he has the formula and just keeps reusing it over and over...

I reread the Belgariad about once a year, on average, and the Malloreon and the two Sparhawk trilogies about half that often.

The Redemption of Althalus I found tedious the first time I read it; I've only read it once since, and I didn't find it quite as bad, but it's not something I'm in a hurry to read again.

The first book of the Elder Gods was... okay. But I'm not hanging out for the second one, and I'm quite happy to reread the Belgariad in the mean time

-Hyp.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I happen to like Eddings (though I haven't read his latest). When someone asks me how to roleplay a paladin who isn't lawful stupid, I point them at Sparhawk.

Whether you like him or not, though, his treatise on world building (The Rivan Codex) is great reading for any DM building a world for a campaign. I'll bet the Jordan background material is equally useful for world building, though I haven't read it (I gave up on Jordan at about book 6 of WoT, and I'm not going back).

 

[Desdichado]

While I can't complain about Eddings world-building skills, his characterizations haven't been remotely good since the original series, and he also needs to learn to stop recycling the same plot. After reading the Belgariad, the Malnorean (or whatever the heck the followup to that was called) and then the second two series about Sparhawk, I decided I had had more than enough Eddings to last for a while.

Although, I wouldn't mind picking up the Belgariad itself again. He struck gold the first time and then tried to repeat it a little bit too literally.

 

[Hypersmurf]

While I can't complain about Eddings world-building skills, his characterizations haven't been remotely good since the original series, and he also needs to learn to stop recycling the same plot.

You have to give him credit for making recycling-the-plot a part of the story in the Malloreon, though

The characters have philosophical discussions on the fact!

-Hyp.