-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Anyone else likes Robert Jordan better than Tolkien?
- Thread starter Melkor Lord Of ALL!
- Start date
Orius
Unrepentant DM Supremacist
Comparing Tolkien and jordan is difficult, IMO. Each man has his own strengths and weaknesses in his writing. There's really a different flavor between the two worlds.
Tolkien's strengths are his language and myth building. That's really the whole reason he wrote all that stuff on ME.
Jordan is somewhat of a better world builder, though. His world has a lot more cities, politics, and cultural diversity than Tolkien.
Tolkien's strengths are his language and myth building. That's really the whole reason he wrote all that stuff on ME.
Jordan is somewhat of a better world builder, though. His world has a lot more cities, politics, and cultural diversity than Tolkien.
Isn't asking who's better between the two a bit like asking which makes a better building material - Oxygen or Cheesecake. It's pretty much a meaningless question.
What ever you think about how much you LIKE Tolkien, there is clearly a very high level of craftsmanship that went into the books. I think the Silmarilion took something like 30+ years to write and the compilations of his notes for it and LotR took up something like 10 books. That amount of effort and the fact that he is pretty much the creator of the fantasy genre really does make his works something special. Doesn't mean everybody is going to like them or think they make for a great story, but they are something unique and unlikely to ever be repeated (Aside from Terry Brooks plaguerizing LotR in "The Sword of Shannara").
What ever you think about how much you LIKE Tolkien, there is clearly a very high level of craftsmanship that went into the books. I think the Silmarilion took something like 30+ years to write and the compilations of his notes for it and LotR took up something like 10 books. That amount of effort and the fact that he is pretty much the creator of the fantasy genre really does make his works something special. Doesn't mean everybody is going to like them or think they make for a great story, but they are something unique and unlikely to ever be repeated (Aside from Terry Brooks plaguerizing LotR in "The Sword of Shannara").
barsoomcore
Unattainable Ideal
Re: The subjective nature of artistic analysis.
While it's certainly possible to compare authors on objective grounds -- to, for example, compare the number of grammatical errors their prose contains, or the number of adverbs used or any other objective measure one might wish, this doesn't lead you to any sort of conclusion regarding who is the better writer.
Great writers may or may not be great pose stylists. I happen to like great prose stylists, which is why I love writers like Brust and Calvino and Ondaatje. They can take the rules of the English language and USE them to create thrilling tales.
But I also love writers like Henry Miller or Edgar Rice Burroughs who are working in entirely different worlds, with different priorities -- Miller just ignoring the rules and letting the headlong rush of his language propel his writing and Burroughs who (like Howard, who I bet is better but I haven't read enough to say) is just so frickin' excited about this story he has to tell that you don't care that his language is so flat, he hauls you along with such energy.
All that said, I don't think there can be much doubt that Tolkien is a far superior stylist to Jordan. I suspect that Jordan would not dispute that point. I suspect that if you compare the finished writings of both men you would find superior grammar and usage in Tolkien. You would find greater variety of sentence structure, more imaginative metaphor, a far, far broader vocabulary and superior use of poetical devices like scansion and assonance in Tolkien.
Which means nothing when comparing them as "writers", unless you happen to really like that stuff. Which I do, but well, there you go. Nice for me. There are certainly things that Jordan does better, and not all of the things listed above are objectively "better". Jordan uses a smaller vocabulary -- that can be seen as an advantage as much as a disadvantage. I prefer one to the other, but that preference is purely subjective.
To use textual analysis to "prove" one author is superior to another is impossible. What you CAN do is analyze what an author actually does, and discuss why you do or do not like it, or talk about what you think that might demonstrate as far as the author's point of view, or suggest that it illustrates some particular philosophical notion behind the story -- but to use it to say one writer is simply better than another is kind of pointless. And fraught with difficulty. And unnecessary -- isn't it enough to just say, "I like so-and-so better and here's why" rather than need to say, "So-and-so is BETTER!" ?
The former is a statement of opinion offered as a point of discussion. The latter is a declaration of faith masquerading as fact in order to stifle discussion. I reckon.
While it's certainly possible to compare authors on objective grounds -- to, for example, compare the number of grammatical errors their prose contains, or the number of adverbs used or any other objective measure one might wish, this doesn't lead you to any sort of conclusion regarding who is the better writer.
Great writers may or may not be great pose stylists. I happen to like great prose stylists, which is why I love writers like Brust and Calvino and Ondaatje. They can take the rules of the English language and USE them to create thrilling tales.
But I also love writers like Henry Miller or Edgar Rice Burroughs who are working in entirely different worlds, with different priorities -- Miller just ignoring the rules and letting the headlong rush of his language propel his writing and Burroughs who (like Howard, who I bet is better but I haven't read enough to say) is just so frickin' excited about this story he has to tell that you don't care that his language is so flat, he hauls you along with such energy.
All that said, I don't think there can be much doubt that Tolkien is a far superior stylist to Jordan. I suspect that Jordan would not dispute that point. I suspect that if you compare the finished writings of both men you would find superior grammar and usage in Tolkien. You would find greater variety of sentence structure, more imaginative metaphor, a far, far broader vocabulary and superior use of poetical devices like scansion and assonance in Tolkien.
Which means nothing when comparing them as "writers", unless you happen to really like that stuff. Which I do, but well, there you go. Nice for me. There are certainly things that Jordan does better, and not all of the things listed above are objectively "better". Jordan uses a smaller vocabulary -- that can be seen as an advantage as much as a disadvantage. I prefer one to the other, but that preference is purely subjective.
To use textual analysis to "prove" one author is superior to another is impossible. What you CAN do is analyze what an author actually does, and discuss why you do or do not like it, or talk about what you think that might demonstrate as far as the author's point of view, or suggest that it illustrates some particular philosophical notion behind the story -- but to use it to say one writer is simply better than another is kind of pointless. And fraught with difficulty. And unnecessary -- isn't it enough to just say, "I like so-and-so better and here's why" rather than need to say, "So-and-so is BETTER!" ?
The former is a statement of opinion offered as a point of discussion. The latter is a declaration of faith masquerading as fact in order to stifle discussion. I reckon.
Dragonblade
Adventurer
Taelorn76 said:I really need to go reread book 9 I have no memory of that happening.
Spoilers:
The end of the book features Rand and Nyneave using the Ter'Angreal that let them both draw on the super, big, Sa'Angreal statues that are being unearthed. They use that immense power, directed by Nyneave, since she has the aptitude for healing, to cleanse Saidin. They basically skim the taint off the top and channell it into Shadar Logoth. Destroying both the taint and the city in the process.
They bring friends to protect them though, since a whole bunch of bad guys and Forsaken show up to stop them once they realize what Rand is doing. It was the climax of the book. The coolest scene, IMO, since the Battle of Dumai's Wells in Book 6.
End spoiler.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
