Tolkien vs Jordan: The Ultimate Brawl [Archive]

Nero

19th November 2002, 14:44

Hi all! Alas, I am but a newb to these forums, and decided to say something after lurking around for quite some time. I like to keep my real identity secret, but if anyone actually wants to know, they're going to have to do some serious beggage.

The topic of this thread is fairly self-explanitory. I posted this topic on another forum and it got some good discussions going, so I thought it would be good to do it again. Take your vote and let's see who really is better...

Aragorn

19th November 2002, 16:26

You mean physically? I think Jordan could probably take Tolkien. After all, Jordan graduated from an American military academy, and Tolkien was just a scrawny old Brit.

BUT, Tolkien is a far superior writer, and I'd be willing to bet was MUCH more intelligent. Does Jordan have a PHD? No.

Nero

19th November 2002, 16:57

FOCL, Aragorn. No, I'm afraid I didn't mean physically, athough that would be pretty darn funny to see two writers duke it out. What I was trying to say is by their writing and stories and all that good stuff. :p

Rosanna-Sedi

19th November 2002, 18:18

I have to say that I was really dissapointed with TLOTR books, more the fact that it kept building up and building up but the end was a bit of a damp squib in my view. The hobbit is my all time fave and it always will be.

~prepares to be shot down in flames for speaking against Tolkien~

I cannot say if one is better than the other. They both have thier own stregnths. I like RJ's books more, even if they are a little bit long winded.

:cry: please don't hurt me.

Evandar

19th November 2002, 19:29

Tolkiens books are either black or white. Either you´re good or evil. Jordan takes his characters a little bit further. I admit that the main idea in Jordans books is the fight between good and evil, but the characters in the books are a little bit more complex. Both can be good but do they stray towards the same goal. That is the main difference, due to my opinion.

Sorry for my bad english, I hope that all of you understands my point.

Aragorn

19th November 2002, 20:53

I disagree with your first statement. Look at Gollum. He was originally good, but he was twisted and changed by the power of the Ring. Saruman was the same way, the existence of the Ring make him hungry for its power, and most who came in contact with it were affected. All evil came from one source, and almost every other character was really good inside.

MourningHunter

19th November 2002, 23:04

I agree a little with you Aragorn but come on it's still mor black and white than WoT. The ring is the source of the evil everyone has the same goal get the ring.... Basically all the bad guys in TLOTR had the same goal. Even the good guys sought the ring, they just wanted to destroy it. :rolleyes:

Now in WoT the evil characters not only want to destroy Rand they want to destroy each other and all other sources of power. They are all very different. Like Fain, hates both the light and the shadow but is definitely evil. Also, RJ doesn't open his evil characters up like Tolkien did. You knew who was evil in TLOTR where as in WoT you were always kept guessing....

Same with the side of the light, Rand is striving for gaining as much power as possible before TG while the AS are either trying to take control of Rand, kill him, serve him, or sway his ideas. and characters like the Seanchan aren't necessarily bad they just want to retake the land they once came from. They still try to defeat the shadow and who ever dwells in it and Rand may still need him to win TG. And the Whitecloaks, they are supposed to be the symbol of a true follower of the light but instead use it as a mask to do whatever they want.

So to finish WOT is more of a black and white with a lot of grey and TLOTR is just plain black and white.

Corvus Corax

22nd November 2002, 12:42

I think you should consider the fact that without LoTR WoT would never have been written. It was written in a time when people looked at the world in black and white.

LoTR has the advantage of a complex history (the sillmarillion) and a relativly simple plot for the one time reader and WoT has the advantage of a plot with a complexity to sink your teeth in.

All in all I'm glad they both exist.

PS: physicaly you should remind the fact Tolkien fought in WW1.

Arawis

22nd November 2002, 20:16

well...though i LIKE tolien (cuz really who doesnt?) and i LIKED lotr....the books were kinda boring. sure when the characters were doign stuff it was really good, but then it had all those times of travel or whatever where tolkien seemed to describe EVERY SINGLE MOMENT and that just didnt seem necessary to me. it was one of those books where i would eb readign and then i would just space out and be looking at the words then liek 10 pages later id snap out of it and be like "what did i just read?" and id have to read it all again.
of course, im nto saying that it hink RJ is a better writer than JRR. i LOVED the hobbit :)

thats all. im not going to say who id think would win.

Byrn

22nd November 2002, 20:27

Jordan Served in Vietnam, recieved medals, and attended college at the Citadel. Tolkien was a skiny Brit....you decide.

Rosanna-Sedi

23rd November 2002, 07:52

Thats your argument? He was a skinny brit. Couldn't you think of something a bit more constructive?

Corvus Corax

23rd November 2002, 13:50

If you ever had a great yourney yourself you would know that most of the time the travelling is boring. I'm glad Tolkien did put it in his books, otherwise the the feeling of adventure would be lost to the reader. Tolkien is more of a storyteller, RJ is more of a plotmaker. I wouldn't want to play chess against RJ, he thinks to much.

James

23rd November 2002, 17:58

Jordan is far superior. Tolkien talks too much

Arawis

24th November 2002, 19:08

yes CC, i know the travelling is usually boring. which is why many authors do not write it all out. i would not mind the fact that he is more of a storyteller if the journeying was more interesting. it was those parts that killed the books for me.

Beppie

24th November 2002, 22:14

Actually Tolkien served in WWII.

I think Tolkien is easily a better writer. Jordan borrows a lot from Tolkien, but he loses the art of it along the way.

Tolkien's black and white is a lot more complicated than one would think. The fact is you have to look at Tolkien in a symbolic sense (although there's no harm in just treating it as a ripping yarn either) to appreciate its complexity. I got this from an Ursula le Guin essay called The Child and the Shadow, btw. Overtly it seems like a lot of black and white contrasts, but look at how they occur- against the bright elves, you have the orcs, against the humans such as Aragorn and Boromir you have the black riders, and against Frodo, you have gollum. These dichtomies are all blurred at some stage during the saga- Galadriel wonders if she could take the ring for herself, Boromir dies from wanting it, and most significantly, you have the whole Frodo/Gollum relationship. If Lord of the Rings is so clear cut and black and white, then why is it ultimately Gollum, who fulfils the quest to drop the ring into the fires of Mordor? Why is it Gollum's greed and corruption that leads him to fulfil this quest, rather than the fulfilment coming about from a renunciation of these vices?

There isn't much more to Jordan's work than the tale itself. True, the tale does make use of some interesting philosophy as to the nature of good and evil, and the driving forces of life, but the fact is that this philosophy isn't expressed within the work symbolically like it is in Tolkien, the art just isn't in it.

I will say I agree with many people here that I found Jordan's work more engaging than Tolkien's- that is one area in which RJ wins. However, in all other areas, Tolkien is the great writer, whereas RJ is just composing something (albeit something very enjoyable) with scraps from the dinnertable.

mindphone

26th November 2002, 20:12

martin shits on them both.

val7

1st December 2002, 18:56

*agrees with mp*

Tolkien is pretty good, Jordan is better, and GRRM is the best.

"I have spoken. All depart."

(what is that quote from? I can't remember :( )

Nero

1st December 2002, 22:17

LoL, val, I think that's from someone's signature...

Maybe I've been lurking a tad too much...:blush:

Aragorn

2nd December 2002, 22:30

Sorry, Martin isn't nearly as good a storyteller as Tolkien.

Your opinion means nothing.

LaughingTurtle

2nd December 2002, 23:34

~bops aragon on the head~

now, now, be nice

val7

3rd December 2002, 18:15

But Tolkiens books are so short! and he's dead so he can't write any more!
(the only thing that might make Tolkien better than GRRM is that they made movies about his books)

MourningHunter

5th December 2002, 23:34

If RJ is writing from scraps, i'll take leftovers anyday....

Sorrowmind

6th December 2002, 15:18

Actually, Tolkien Served in WWI on Marne I guess....

Blood_Hawk

3rd January 2003, 18:47

I think that Jordan would win, because Tolkien is dead, unless Jordan had a heart attack from the 5h33r 7h0ugh7 of having to fight JRR.

Dreamergirl

3rd January 2003, 18:54

I think that Tolkien should win because he has a more sophisticated form of writing. He describes better. I have a good image of what the characters look like. Also I think that he has more creativity (I mean, come on, he thought of hobbits of all things in the world).
Alhtough I will agree that Jordan is a talented author, I fail to see how he could compare with Tolkien. I mean, who doesn't know The Hobbit?

baxts

23rd January 2003, 16:58

hm, sits back and watches the carnage......AND TOLKOIEN WINS DUE TO RJ TRIPPING OVER HIS OWN FOOT...argh, i dont really care who wins, they're both good.

James

24th January 2003, 08:05

i bet Nero really is RJ

mindphone

24th January 2003, 08:36

Originally posted by Aragorn
Sorry, Martin isn't nearly as good a storyteller as Tolkien.

Your opinion means nothing.

wrong.

Fearless

1st February 2003, 02:40

Tolkien is the ultimate master because he is the one who started it all, and he made his whole world soo detailed that it's just mind boggling.
I don't have the patience personnally to read his whole world history and stuff but i'm sure it's wild just because it all came out of his head and the detail that he gave it.
RJ's is pretty detailed too, but Tolkien is the pioneer of fantasy and for that I say he wins hands down for that simple fact.

LaughingTurtle

1st February 2003, 02:57

*cough* *cough* :rolleyes:

Tolkien is NOT the pioneer, father, etc of fantasy...he is the blah, biddy, blah blah of MODERN/contemporary fantasy. Do not confuse the two. For let us not forget the great fantasy works which came a few hundred years before Tolkien was even born....gilgamesh, beowulf, the Odyssey, the Aenid...etc

Meh, I just get this way when people think that or say that Tolkien is the end all, king shit who started it all...he in fact paid homage to the stuff that came before by studying such earlier works.

/rant

Aragorn

2nd February 2003, 00:32

LT, those stories mentioned were based on existing word-of-mouth myths and legends that had existed for years upon years before being written down. JRR Tolkien totally invented his world and characters, put it down on paper, and all fantasy literature is inspired by it.

LaughingTurtle

2nd February 2003, 02:40

Uh Aragorn, you pretty much just helped my point...yes some of those stories mentioned were in fact passed along by word of mouth, but that doesn't change the fact that they had the fundamental aspects of "fantasy" and occured way before Tolkien's time. I'm not trying to say that Tolkien didn't invent his own world and characters or that he wasn't a great author, only that he didn't create the genre.

bole11

28th February 2003, 20:31

I personaly feel that WoT is a better story than the LotR. Howerver when compareing the two auther' Tolkien also wrote "the Silmarlion," "Unfinished Tales of Middle Earth and Numeanor," "The Hobbit," and "The Lost tales. These all coinsided with each other as part of one giant history of Middle Earth. Also Tolkeins goal of the LotR was to create a Mythology for Europe. He was very upset that Europe had no Mythology that it could call it's own. In RJ's defence to when some said he took alot from Tolkein, Tolkein himself took alot of his ideas from one of the most famous bocks ever written; "Beowulf"
Loking at the plot lines of the two series WoT is much more complex. Overall Wot is much more pleasing to the reader and overall better.

WHY DOESN'T SOMEONE MAKE A MOVIE OUT OF IT

Nachtnoir

28th February 2003, 20:52

And I love getting to be the one to tell you. Tolkien was not the first to do anything. He himself in biography pays homage to other writer's who he borrowed concepts, and help with world building.

Fritz Lieber's World of Nehwon was created first. And with the help of Fritz and a few others, LoTR was birthed. Tolkien was an academic, a historian to be more exact. Writing LoTR was not his goal.

In his college years, JRR started writing little scraps, bit of the bigger history of middle earth, these scrapes would end up being the Simarillion. He was upset that the Brits had no mythology of their own and took it upon himself to make one. Borrowing a little from the myths of neighboring countries to get the flavor, along the way.

He himself was said to hate the LoTR. Only allowing it to be published if some of his other stuff would get printed too.

But, he was not the first Modern Fantasy Writer, the first to build worlds, or even the best. Algernon Blackwood wrote 40 years before him, Lovecraft wrote some "Sword and Sorcery" stuff before he started the Cthulu stuff, and again Lieber's books were before the LoTR, and IMO better.

This isn't to say that LoTR sucks, it is great, just not the best, and definately not the first.

And as for Jordan, I haven't read the last two books, and was disappointed with the two before that. For my money Michael Moorcock has them both beat for quality and for detail in his world.

:D

Dj_ez

2nd March 2003, 10:32

Ok, brief reminder for everyone......

Most myths have a basis in fact, just distorted through time and word of mouth. Ok, got that, no problem

JRR used some of that distortion to make his own world. To me that would make JRR ONE of the first. I have not read World of Nehwon, Algernon Blackwood, or Lovecraft, so I am forced to keep my opinion to myself in ignorance.

As for Beowoulf, no one should be able to take credid for writing it, unless they pay homage to everyone who passed it down before the "writer" decided hey, I cant remember all of this, I should write it down.

Like I said, this is my limited opinion. Oh well. Ignorance is..... Uhmmmnnn....... whats that word again?

Byrn

3rd March 2003, 16:14

The Elric Saga is more descriptive than the Lord of the Rings or the Wheel of Time? Well that's your opinion. I think the Chronicles of Amber and the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant are more descriptive. As for world builders or Society set-ups, no one tops Andre Norton. She's very thorough.

QuirkyTemplate

3rd March 2003, 18:58

Chronicles of Amber ...?

>gag<

I found myself depressed because I wanted the main character to die in a horrible way, but I knew the whole story was written in first person, thus, there was no way for him to die.

P_Goldeneyes

3rd March 2003, 19:58

Chronicles of Amber ...?

Byrn

3rd March 2003, 20:14

Roger Zelazny. The books about Corwin are excellent. The ones about Merlin are tedious. Check your local Library.

Nachtnoir

8th March 2003, 17:02

I have read the Chronicles of Amber, but not the Covenant books. But to compare the Cowrin books from Amber on the same level as WoT, the Eternal Champion or any of the GRRM books is laughable.

Although I love a good bit of Zelazny's work, the Amber books are very poorly written. Not very detailed or descriptive, and the characters are not very likable.

Nero

10th March 2003, 22:33

Originally posted by Lord Semaj
i bet Nero really is RJ

heh. That's pretty funny.

Byrn

10th March 2003, 22:54

You didn't like Corwin or Gerad or Julian or Benedict or even Diedre? As for the describtion I thought it was very vivid. Well it's all up to debate.

val7

13th March 2003, 20:43

Originally posted by Nero
heh. That's pretty funny.
*suspicious*

dustin

6th April 2003, 01:38

I look at it this way... The lord of the rings series were a dissappointment and now they are trying to make up with a movie. Wheel of time books by RJ are much more stable. I myself have read them all five times and still enjoy them. If i read the lord of the rings that much well there would be a book burning. PHD or not Jordan is better. Tolkien is a washed up old cragfaced goofboy.

Dustin...........punk forever

Byrn

7th April 2003, 13:14

Dustin, you obviously don't know what you are talking about.

Toss the Dice

5th May 2003, 09:23

I've read LOTR about 6 times...Love it even more every time I read it.

Oh Yeah, there's no way Jordan is better than Tolkien...I mean, I can say that every series that I've read since reading Jordan (except 1) have been better. Some have been better than LOTR too, but I can say this much...Tolkien is the best AUTHOR I have ever read.

If you still maintain that Jordan is a better AUTHOR than Tolkien, you're kidding yourself.

Llothlian

7th May 2003, 07:07

ok i couldnt be bothered to read most of the replies, so i will just stick my comments in here...

the lord of the rings is written in a very childish manner, i mean who the hell sits in a boat and sings to the wind etc, but the overall story line is incredible... i mean he wrote a whole history of a planet, not to mension a whole language (thats what he was a teacher for at university)...

BUT

Jordon has a better writing style which is easier to read im opinion, and also has a very good story line...

they are both very good, but the WOT just beats is...

and who is JUST A BRIT???

Toss the Dice

12th May 2003, 19:40

Everyone has different opinions, and everyone thinks different things. It is hard to take some people seriously because of different opinions. Because of this fact, this "brawl" against Tolkiens writing vs Jordans writing will go on FOREVER!!!

Llothlian

16th May 2003, 06:21

actually it would not last that long... i mean tolkien is dead, so jordan would not have a hard time beating him up...

(thats really sick... why'd i say that??)

Burkshifter

5th July 2003, 18:25

Tolkien is obviously better. Don't even think about Jordan being better than Tolkien.

Aragorn

5th July 2003, 22:01

Originally posted by Llothlian

the lord of the rings is written in a very childish manner...

BUT

...Jordon... is easier to read im opinion...

So first you claim that LotR is childish (which is simply...well "wrong" isn't a strong enough word), but then you like WoT because it's an "easy reader". Okay.

I bet you'd like Dr. Seuss even better.

Lucas Jin'ra

7th July 2003, 08:07

Its a hard subject to argue over!

I couldn't really look at it as a whole so- I thought of the best bits from both series-Return Of The King and The Great Hunt. In this matter I think LotR is far superior. Pelennor Fields and Cormallen are far better battles then the ones at Falme and Dumai's Well.

I think Jordan needs to set Tarmon Gaidon off -for the series too equal LotR.

Fusion

4th August 2003, 02:44

I'm not denying the fact that LOTR was a brilliant work of fantasy literature, but i think Jordons WOT had some very definat advantages over it, in my opinion the wheel of time was - not a better book - but a more entertaining book, where Tolkien's books are more intelligent and thought provoking, Jordon's are much more fun and exciting, tho he does tend to drone on in his descriptions at points.

I will say that i myself enjoyed The Wheel of Time series quite more then i did The Lord of the Rings, only because i more prefer the modern writing style or Jordon, and his brilliant plot and characters, as well as his ability to make seeming insignificant bits of information very important for future events, and the way he tends to add small hints of the future hidden in unlikely places.

Toss the Dice

16th August 2003, 17:47

Someone said that Jordan is better because Tolkien talks too much. Well, in Jordans books, nothing has happened from books 7-CoT. Hmmmmm.Tolkien finished up the books much quicker than 10+ books.

That is all I wanted to say.

The End

Elessar

18th August 2003, 10:39

Evidence in the names, wouldn't you agree that Hurin is not a very common name? Guess where it also appears, The Silmarillion, there are also other names and themes in WoT that made me think of LotR such as the Saidin's taint, much like the One Ring in a distant sort of manner. Saidin is a powerful force but it is tainted and makes the user go mad. As for the Ring, it corrupts even the most good hearted.

As for the legends, Gandalf used a lot of Norse legends, Beowulf, Odin and many more. Proof? Well in Beowulf a man steals a gold cup from a dragon and the dragon lays waste to the countryside before Beowulf kills the dragon, but not before it fatally wounds him. In the Hobbit, Bilbo also steals a cup and Smaug lays waste to the countryside only to be killed. Tolkien admitted to using that parallel and also when Legolas describes the Golden Hall of King Theoden "The light of it shines far over the land" is also the same line used to describe the Mead Hall in Beowulf.

Want more? Then the legend of Kullervo in Kalevala should prove it.
Kullervo has some parallels with Turin Turambar
-Both gained their swords by murder
-They both fell in love and married their sisters unknowingly
-They finally ask their swords to kill them and the sword answers back with the answer yes but the sword breaks under them.

KevBrinks

18th August 2003, 19:21

Its definatly Tolkien...I have been reading tLotR for the past 7 years, and I make a point of reading it once every year. I have written many school papers on the series, from short essays on "metaphor" to my senior thesis paper (graduation requirement) which I titled: "Tolkien: Myth or Fantasy". In this paper I analyzed Tolkiens work compared to other works you call fantasy, but are in fact "myths". Stories like Beowulf and the Aeneid are both MYTHS, not fantasy. The Aeneid was a work of propaganda for christs sake. As a professor of linguistics, as well as a Literature teacher Tolkien was very familiar with these works and others like the tales of King Arthur. Such stories are in fact mythic rather than "fantasy". While they contain many of the same things you might find in fantasy, such as dragons and sword fighting etc, you have to analyze the purpose of them.

shit i have to get off the computer now, so I will edit this into a definitive rant at a later time. however I will bring some closure by saying this: LotR is Fantasy in its fullest sense. however there are many aspects of myth in it as well. Tolkien was able to weave mythic ideals and concepts into the first work of modern fantasy in such a way that the books not only entertain with the detail of the world and the bad-ass-ness of character (Aragorn, for example) but they also give a philisophical outlook on human nature and life. Jordan is merely entertaining, and so far the only example of him trying to deliver a point of human nature that I have found is the idea of the "man vs. woman"...or "villiage idiot vs pms-ing bitch". quite honestly he has done a pretty shitty job of doing it.

oh yeah in a physical fight RJ would probably win as his beard would swallow JRR in the first round, altho perhaps Tolkien could get in a good stab in the eye with his pipe...

Elessar

19th August 2003, 07:45

In a brawl RJ would win, why?

Tolkien participated for awhile during WWI but he was sent back to England, reason? Concussion but he still made notes about Middle-Earth during his time in the trenches.

Aveendra

19th August 2003, 22:16

Ok, seriously, there is no win and lose here. I'm an avid fantasy reader of many different authors. Each author has their own unique strong points and faults. I actually love Raymond. E. Fiest and I think in many aspects he reins supreme over both jr tolkien and rj.
And what's the basis that we are determining whose best, anyway? How do you define who is better? Through what you personally like, right? Well in that case, no-one is better than someone else because everyone has their opinions and opinions do vary...
Besides, to even finish a fantasy epic is an accomplishment in itself. *Applauds all fantasy writers* Keep up the great work guys.

KA3AK

20th August 2003, 14:49

People, people, what's going on??? You absolutely cannot compare Tolkien to Jordan. Their books are just too different, their purposes are different. It would be the same as comparing Tolkien to..eh ~thinks of a classical author who wrote long books ~ Leo Tolstoy.

GoldenEyes

20th November 2003, 00:20

ack, now i dont really have much to say in the way of this argument other than that personally i like LOTR the best, for my own reasons. However, what i do have to say is this. When it comes to an argument over such things as literature, or art, etc., there is no right and wrong. When it comes right down to it, it is a matter of oppinion. No persons oppinion can be right or wrong. it can merely be that persons own oppinion. to put it simply, both series of books are wonderful in themselves, it just depends on whether a person likes them or not, or how much. Im surprised this argument has gone on for as long as it has without such a thing being said (on these forums especially:p ).
(oh and by the way, feel free to flame me for whatever reason, its always good fun to argue back)

Rockworm

28th December 2003, 02:52

i think its pretty hard to say 1 is better than the other. They both have some very good books under there sleeve in my opinion the wheel of time is my favorite. But that doesnt neccesserrily make jordan better than tolkein 10 books going on to 11 is a lot of reading to allow us to get to know the characters and understand what theyre going through. but even if the lord of the rings were 3 books long i understood the characters they both have great stuff lets just leave it at that shall we?

jakubc

10th November 2004, 10:00

I don't know about you, but I found LoTR to be very badly written concerning the structure of the story... reading it I had no idea what was goning to happen next, because almost anything could and would. The lack of some kind of stucturalised magic system (although explained somewhat made no sence what so ever), the whole thing was too ilogical for me. Looking at Jordan and Tolkien's background it is obvious why this is... but still. Reading Jordan you can relate to the story a LOT more than to LoTR, because the characters act within their explained frame.

Hope I made my point;-)

Jakub

Machar

13th November 2004, 01:18

I have to agree that while Tolkien is great literature, Robert Jordan writes more engaging books. Reading Tolkien can be sort of like reading the bible. Especially the Sillmarilion which I've never been able to get through. But even with LOTR and the Hobbit, Tolkien sticks to the narrator form, which doesn't really make you feel as close to the characters. And the characters don't argue with each other over petty things the way Robert Jordan's characters do, and like real people do. Although I think the women in Jordan's books tend to argue more than women I know in real life.

So while Tolkien's books are definitely great literature, I generally prefer Jordan's books, at least at the moment. Just like Beethoven and Mozart have made some of the best music ever, but it's not the kind of music I like listening to on a daily basis.

It would be funny if thousands of years later archaeologists were looking at the remains of our culture and found the Silmarillion and thought we actually believed in it like it was our religion. And the Bible was just something people read in hotel rooms for entertainment.

Lightbringer

19th November 2004, 00:04

In my opinion Tolkien's are far better than R.J's. I mean if it wasn't for J.R.R.T.
we wouldn't have fantasy at all, right? I enjoy R.J.'s books a lot (obviously I'm on the fan site...) but they just don't stand up to LOTR which I think has had the most impact on culture of any book written in the last hundred years. :D

Morwen

20th November 2004, 01:45

It would be funny if thousands of years later archaeologists were looking at the remains of our culture and found the Silmarillion and thought we actually believed in it like it was our religion. And the Bible was just something people read in hotel rooms for entertainment.
Lol:p You know, that might actually happen;)

I agree with Machar:) I've been a Tolkien fan for some time now, but even during my most fervent Tolkien-worshiping moments, I was put off by his writing style. For one thing, he tends to go on and on with landscape descriptions, so that in the end out of the three thousand pages of LOTR the actual story is just three hundred pages long and the rest is just unnecessary icing. There is little humour throughout his works, except those concerning hobbits, and things tend to get a little bleak after a while.

But for all his short-comings, one thing can be said for the old geezer, and that is he sure can create a sense of depth in a story:) I think that that, at the least, should be taken into consideration when judging Tolkien’s works. The amount of detail he’s created to bring Middle-earth to life, the mythology, the languages, the literature, the unbroken chain of historical events from the moment of Arda’s creation; it’s just awe inspiring. I’ve never come across any other writer who even came close to simulating even a semblance of what Tolkien has done. And that’s saying something.

Andunie

29th January 2006, 20:34

When comparing the two, it would be very difficult to say that one is better than the other, because each makes his story engaging in a different way. The language Tolkien uses is much more elaborate, and I do think it is amazing the way he built the world he wrote in, with all the depth and detail in not only physical settings but the entire history. However, I do agree that he did tend to get a little long-winded with describing things and events that were not entirely necessary. Jordan's writing, on the other hand, has a more vivid immediate setting and character personalities. Tolkien's writing kind of took events in a wider, broader perspective, while Jordan, like most modern writers, used detail in smaller, more focused settings. Personally, I prefer Tolkien's writing more, but evidently I like Jordan's as well, which makes for good, lighter reading.