Favorite Civs?

[Jester]

Gee, I don't seem to remember that quote from LotR...



-Jester

[Griselda]

I have to disagree with you about DL, Drasca, although maybe that's because I like things like the Odyssey and Beowulf that sprawl long and large against a mythic tradition. My cats are names Circe and Scylla, even. So, feel free to take my opinions with a grain of salt.

Dragonlance never really did it for me. I tried to like it, but I don't even know that I finished the first book (hmm, judging by my bookshelf it looks like I bought two of them, so I probably did finish one). I didn't think the writing was all that good. It kind of reminded me of Salvatore (I thought the Dark Elf trilogy was entertaining, but Icewind Dale was terrible!). Maybe if I had grown up playing D&D and reading TSR books, I'd feel differently, but IMO neither series is good enough to grab me as reader who found the genre as an adult.

Sure, you could apply Joseph Campbell's heroic cycle to Dragonlance, or Star Wars, or a number of other things. That's probably what makes the stories entertaining. But, that's not all it takes to make them good[.

Of course, I'm eagerly awaiting the next installment in the Wheel of Time series, , so you never can tell about my taste in books.

[Majromax]

Hmm - I gotta disagree there. Sam and Frodo, Sam and Rosie, Eowyn's threesome with Aragorn and Faramir are all stronger, and still fall second to Gimli/Galadriel.

Sam and Frodo wasn't a romance in any traditional sense; that one's out. Sam to Frodo is best described as devoted servant to loving master.

Sam and Rosie is a valid set, but Rosie doesn't have any part to play outside of the very beginning and Scouring of the Shire. Also, Rosie changes Sam less than Arwen influences (albeit mostly prior to the beginning of the books) Aragorn.

Eowyn is definitely valid, and that shows up in the movie. Unfortunately for movie-ness, Eowyn doesn't show up at all until the second book, and Faramir doesn't meet her until well into the third.

Gimli/Galadirel isn't a romance as such, but an enchantment. It fits in very well with the overall impression of Galadriel's woods, but it doesn't lend itself to the idea of Gimli running off with Galadriel and having very short, hairy Elf babies together.

Sam and Rosie is the love of peasants, Eowyn/Faramir/Aragorn is the love of gentlemen, Gimli/Galadirel is the love of divinity, and Arwen/Aragorn is by far the closest to "traditional" notions of courtly, knightly, selfless love. That one resonates best with viewers, because it's the one idealized most in Western society.

[Kylearan]

Hi,

The original dragonlance trilogy is the modern standard setter (if mid-80's is modern)

I don't think so. Would it still have the same amount of success if it wasn't an AD&D novel? I seriously doubt it. It's a nice saga, but not really better or different than many others from that time. And it's a lot more shallow than LotR IMO. LotR is extremely well-crafted on so many levels: Story, background, language, mythology, ... Dragonlance, on the other hand, looks a bit like a factory product instead of art. Sure, it has all the ingredients people agree an epic fantasy saga must have, but that's not enough to make it a classic that will be read for generations to come, like LotR.

For a long time, I couldn't really put my finger on what makes LotR so special, compared to other fantasy sagas. Then I read Tom Shippey's book Tolkien: Author of the Century, which really opened my eyes just how well LotR is done, and why it has such a magic feel to it. Shippey is Tolkien's successor as Professor at Oxford, and makes a detailed analysis of LotR and why he considers it a classic. It's a great read, and really lets you appreciate the book more - I highly recommend it. It opened my eyes why I found LotR so great, and why I'm sure Dragonlance will be forgotten in 30-40 years.

In the end, it's all a matter of taste of course.

-Kylearan

[Fizban]

Since it was my screen name that started this whole mess, I guess I should weigh in on the LOtR vs. DL debate.

Obviously, LOtR is by far the better series by any literary measure. Hickman and Weis write well, understand their craft and have created some truly memorable characters, but they aren't even close to Tolkein in their abilities. Of course, as a PhD candidate in Medieval Lit., I'm a bit biased.

What grants both series such resonance is the elaborate base behind them. As anyone who's read the Silmarilion knows, Tolkien's Middle Earth goes much deeper than the world we see in the LOtR and the Hobbit. That rich background, which wells up in the novels from time to time, lends a deeper sense of reality to his world that facilitates the suspension of disbelief. In addition, he has used so much from his own study of medieval cultures in the fashioning of his races that you begin to believe this all actually happened somewhere in the recesses of prehistory.

DragonLance cannot match the depth, nor the breadth of Tolkien's saga. However, the original DL trilogy was created as a means to sell D&D gaming modules and was based on the games played by the original development team. As such, the world in which it is set is also elaborately detailed (through the game materials) and the characters had been "alive" for the authors for quite some time before they began to write the books. IN no way as deep as Middle Earth, Krynn “feels” real because the authors are comfortable with their knowledge of that world — saving the reader from the forced exposition so typical in the genre.

All that having been said, DL would likely make a better movie trilogy than LOtR, with fewer deviations from the source material, for all the same reasons that LOtR's is a better work of literature. There is simply too much there in the LOtR to fit it all into three movies, even if the movies are 3 hours plus in length.

P.S. I’ve always felt Arwen felt horribly tacked-on to the end of LOtR, as if Tolkein realized at the eleventh hour that he needed a princess for Aragorn to marry. All of which is really odd, given the historical parallel their relationship represents in his work. It makes sense for her to appear earlier in the trilogy, so I can understand Jackson’s having done as much in the films.

[Timon of Athens]

I'm one of these freaks that read LotR completely once or twice a year at the least. I've been prowling on many LotR-Boards for years now. For me LotR is a masterpiece and one of my favourite ways to relax from all-day stress (there are some others beside but I won't go into further detail on that ). I've not read Dragonlance but after finishing LotR for the first time (I was thirteen then) and loving it I've tried various other (mostly german) fantasy novels and ended up disappointed every time. They simply weren't a match for LotR. Maybe this measure is unfair, but I rather read a well known and beloved story for the 50th time than trying out a new one and get disappointed even at reading it.

For me the magic of LotR is the depth of the story in which you are able to sink in completely if you have the ability to do that with books in general. After reading a few pages of LotR I'm back and deep in Middle Earth and nothing will bring me back for quite a time. All those subtleness - the language inventions, the mythology, the richness of detail from "A Party long expected" to "The Scouring of the Shire" - all that makes it a worthwile read even if you could retell the story out of your memory because you've read it so often.

As for the films - there has been a lot of hard fought discussion at most of the LotR-Boards on whether PJ's adaption is more of a blasphemy (staining the Bilble of Fantasy Literature) or indeed a well made movie. For me the movies work very well, I rejoice at viewing them every time (and of course I'm owning the SEEs - you could say they are the LotR movies as they should have been). Of course I'd liked to have some things done otherwise, with the "upgraded" role Arwen being one of the minor flaws. There are changes that are heavier - e.g. Aragorn's faked death and the warg attack itself, the changes made to Faramir's character, and so on. On the other hand there stand pictures and arrangements of such beauty and epic that mend all the annoyances. Overall I think PJ and his crew have done a great job, and best of all WETA and Howard Shore.

So LotR will stand as my favourite, I can't imagine a better fantasy novel. Period.

Regards,

LT

[pholkhero]

I, actually, don't really care for LotR.



You may commence flaming.

[Pengbo]

Of course, I'm eagerly awaiting the next installment in the Wheel of Time series

I know what you mean Some one needs to give Mr Jordan a boot up the behind. If he takes much longer to finish this series I just might give up on him as an author :mad:

[VoiceOfUnreason]

If he takes much longer to finish this series I just might give up on him as an author

You kids today....

I'm still waiting on David Gerrold to finish up book five. Book four (Season for Slaughter) was published in December of 1992... less than two months after Dragon Reborn (WoT #3, for those keeping score at home). And there are supposed to be (at least) two more books beyond this next one.

Blarg, I say.

[Atlas]

Of course, I'm eagerly awaiting the next installment in the Wheel of Time series, , so you never can tell about my taste in books.

Robert Jordan is the of fantasy. Of course the most recent book just came out this past Fall, so we can expect the next about 18-24 months from Oct. 05.'