Here is a comparison that few would make. OSC vs the Author of the LoTR.
Tolkien is not to be challenged in many a mind because he is the father of us all in a way. However here is one area where Card beats Tolkien. It is in the acceptence of the passage of time.
Tolkien sees time, at least in Middle Earth as a dwindling spiral to death. Nowhere is this more apparent then in the Romance of Aragorn and Arawhen in the Appendix.
If OSC would have written this then even after Aragorn's death she would have continued her lifes work, taken joy in her children and grand children and worked to keep alive what was left of elven culture in the world for mankind to appreciate it and grow into it. Instead of confusion and laying down to die, she would have given and taken joy from her family.
There is much winter in the soul of Middle Earth. Couldn't the Dwarves and men have built up something wonderful? Certainly some elves remained for centuries after the destruction of the ring, why couldn't they have grown and shared with mankind, or even placed themselves under the human kings?
Pride is not noble and man is not always failing, man is great in the same way that all creatures are great, each generation renews its strength, where the lives of elves must burn with the same fire that grows dim over time, men are ever green.
BC
Posted by Papa Lima (Member # 3924) on :
Strictly from an easy-to-read point of view, OSC thumps JRRT hands down.
JRRT created an entire world, but some of his skills as an author are severely lacking. OSC can't create an entire world like JRRT can, but in terms of story structure and just plain "how to write", he smokes JRRT.
In the end, they're different, both good, and that's why they're both worth reading.
PL
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
I wish Scott would take the time to map out and write large portions of his series at once rather than doling them out piece-meal over time... that's something that Tolkien has him beat on.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Actually, BC, we had a long conversation about that very subject. Go search the archives - it was quite intersting.
Posted by Black Mage (Member # 5800) on :
Blasphemer! Thy still-beating heart shall be torn from thy chest and offered up to me, yea and verily and all that crap!
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:JRRT created an entire world, but some of his skills as an author are severely lacking. OSC can't create an entire world like JRRT can, but in terms of story structure and just plain "how to write", he smokes JRRT.
Actually, I think Tolkein is better at story structure. In fact, he practically wrote the book on story structure. OSC seems to just kinda go with it in his stories, and especially in his series.
OSC is more accessible, more readable. He also has better characters.
Posted by Grandma Edie (Member # 5771) on :
I think that all of you have the comparisons of OSC and JRRT basically correc; which is a better overall writer is a matter of taste, but there isn't any doubt that OSC is more accessible.
One thing more should be said. OSC's female characters. They are numerous, they are relevant to the story, they are individual,they are strong and intelligent.
JRRT's female characters are almost non-existent! (They ARE non-existent in THE HOBBIT.) Even when they are there, the plot could go on without them; they are not essential, just, for the most part, background. Not many are really memorable. Quick now, name five women from OSC. Now, name five from JRRT. Interesting!
Grandma Edie Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
But Legolas was very important to the story! No, wait...
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
*Clears throat*
Actually, Bilbo did mention Belladonna Took. In "The Hobbit" that is . . .
But what can you expect from a confirmed bachelor? And 13 dwarves. And a centuries old wizard? Equal opportunity? HAH!
Posted by Hazen (Member # 161) on :
I can actually name more women from Tolkien. That just shows how much of a geek I am. And that Tolkein has more memorable names.
From Card: Old and Young Peggys, Valentine, Petra, Novinha, Jane, Beauty. I can think of lots of others, but I can't come up with their names. Edit: Not only where there just a few I could name, but I got Novinha's name wrong.
I wouldn't say Tolkien is is always less accessibly. I read Enders game and LOTR at about the same age (11), and I liked Tolkien a lot more. I think Farmer Giles of Ham is as easy to get into as anything by Card, even though it is far from Tolkien's most popular work.
On another note, Tolkien is a much better poet that Card, or almost any other novelist. I was reminded of this recently when I read Michael Ende's The Neverending Story and was appalled at the atrocities with rhymes at the end of them that he tried to pass off as poems (though in all fairness this was probably mostly the fault of the translator). Card's poems are OK, but not as fun as Tolkien's.
I think Card has done a greater variety of stories. Tolkien's books are mostly just "variations on a mythic theme." Card has done a great variety or things.
Card can do family scenes very well. Card can also do ordinarily life so as to make it very interesting, choosing events that are unusual enough to keep you reading, but still very typical. I actually think this is one of Cards greatest talents, choosing "normal" scenes that don't bore you to death. I think of him every time I read an author who thinks that "someone driving down the road" is a good scene. Tolkien doesn't really try at family scenes, and sometimes his prose can drag a little.
I think overall Tolkien is the better writer. But I still like Card.
[ December 17, 2003, 01:53 AM: Message edited by: Hazen ]
Posted by Grandma Edie (Member # 5771) on :
Hazen, you are right about the poems.
The general public hasn't seen much of OSC's poetry, actually. I hope that will change. Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I read OSC because the story is compelling. I read Tolkein (if I even spelled that right) because there are sexy guys in the movie.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
One thing Tolkien did better than anyone is use the sounds of language (not surprising, given his specialty). His rhyme and meter is pretty much dead on.
In his dialog, it's easy to get a sense of the person and situation from the words being used. What's really amazing is how he gets across "high" and "low" speech in the same character.
Frodo is the best example: he has the more rustic style of speaking with the hobbits and a highly educated manner of speaking with the elves and numenoreans. Strider/Aragorn also examplifies this quality well.
In each case, the voice is manifestly that of the character but with a very different tone. I'm not even sure how he does it, but he does it well.
Dagonee
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
Hazen, you're right about the number of women (or females, I guess, if you're going to put Shelob and all the Elves in the list) but a lot of them are mentioned only in passing and are DEFINATELY not as developed as the male characters. But that is as it should be (read on before posting angry replies), because the women do not by any means play as big of a role as they do in OSC.
And I agree that while OSC is easy to read compared to Tolkien, I have to admit that when in your writing you lose that formal, poetic element that Tolkien gets SOOOO amazingly, you also lose a sense of the vastness and deepness of the story. If you see what I'm saying; I realize this is abstract. Middle Earth feels so much bigger to me than any OSC.
But they're really such differnt genres and styles. It's hard to compare. They're both fantastic, anyway!!
Posted by Chandani (Member # 5879) on :
<But they're really such differnt genres and styles. It's hard to compare. They're both fantastic, anyway!!>
I agree. It's like comparing mangoes to pomegranates. They both take a bit of work to get into, and they're both delicious. It's just a question of which flavor (or style) you prefer. I don't think you can definitively say one is a better writer than the other...better at what?
Now I have to admit I've started speculating over which is the mango and which is the pomegranate. :-) I think Tolkien is the mango, because it takes a lot of work to get all the meat, but you can buy them already cut up for you in a jar...kind of like watching the movies. OSC is the pomegranate because he's full of juicy little moments that leave you wanting more.
How silly is that?
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I think that one of them is alive and the other is dead. The dead always get more respect.
Actually, I would say it is more fair to compare JRRT to Frank Herbert. They are both writers of epic worlds. OSC is more about the inner workings of the heart of a community, rather than the technical political, social, and landscape qualities.
[ December 20, 2003, 04:14 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by Grandma Edie (Member # 5771) on :
Occasional, that's a very astute observation, if I may say so: That the dead receive more respect than the living.
I am old enough to remember what some people were saying about JRRT in the fifties; not what they are saying now, you may be sure.
Posted by Hazen (Member # 161) on :
Princess Leah, I know Card has more female main characters. I just can't remember their names, while I can remember Queen Beruthiel, who gets all of one line in LotR, and Firiel, who is only in a poem. So it is just my bias.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
I agree that in general, Tolkien's work does not have many compelling female characters.
However, I think the strongest and most heroic character ever created by Tolkien was Luthien. Sam of course, comes in at a close second. Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
A LUTHIEN fan, eh BEREN one hand? "I might have known..."
I think there's a column of OSC's about how Sam is the real hero of LotR. I myself agree. If you're another really-pissed-that-PJ-didn't-put-in-the-Scouring-of-the-Shire person, then you REALLY should read that column. I think it's the one about TTT so its a 2002 one.
Posted by Wendybird (Member # 84) on :
I agree that Sam is the real hero.... but then again I haven't finished reading them (or watching the movies )
Posted by Beazer (Member # 6049) on :
Brilliantly stated everyone.
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
Wendybird: if you haven't finished RotK (book mostly, but movie too) and you already think Sam is the hero, I can pretty much guarentee you will hold him in even higher esteem by the end, and more than that I cannot add lest I spoil the surprise. Posted by HenryW (Member # 6053) on :
I have lurked often here, but this is my first post. I won't (more reasonably stated - can't) get into a literary discussion about whether Card or Tolkien is a better writer.
However, since each have written what are, to me, wonderful novels of the delimmas we face and our attempts to remain 'good people' as we find solutions, I will comment. Both writers strike a deep seated chord. They challenge you to evaluate your own solutions, especially in situations where 'turning the other cheek' is the only really wrong answer. Kudos to both.
As to my opinion - A story seems to roll and form as Card writes. Tolkien seemed to need to construct his background before seeing a story form.
Stories such as The Lord of The Rings and Ender's Game are special to me and are those rare few writings that I can read a third time.
Posted by Julie (Member # 5580) on :
Personally I prefer Card's works more because I am a very lazy, impatient, and easily distracted person and so I need something that keeps me interested even in parts that don't have a lot of real action. The first time I read FotR (and I've only read it twice) I skipped the whole Elrond's Council scene because it seemed to me like long, boring, pointless stories unrelating to the matter at hand. After seeing the movie and going back to read it a second time I saw that the opposite was true- those stories add a lot of necessary background. My point is that those sections were so wordy that I couldn't force myself to concentrate. Card can have a long passage of background, but he'll break it up with something funny or exciting and not make it feel like it's going on forever. I think people with low levels of concentration (like me) are more geared toward OSC's writing style because it doesn't require a whole lot of thinking to understand the basics of what's happening. Not to say there isn't more to discover, because there always is. It's just with JRRT I find that I have to think too hard to understand where the characters are and what they're talking about. I also find it too intimidating to reread because they're so wordy. No I've gone and rambled on and I don't even remember what my point was. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: I wish Scott would take the time to map out and write large portions of his series at once rather than doling them out piece-meal over time... that's something that Tolkien has him beat on.
The advantage that Tolkien had was that he was not a professional author. If somebody could find OSC a nice job as professor of ancient literature at a university, he wouldn't have to make a living as an author, and he could spend the next thirty years working on one series, just like JRRT.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
Well having seen the RotK at the theater I wish to reply to my first post in that the theatrical story line included the very thing that I questioned.
Arwen was given a vision of her future son, and that was what brought her back. Out of love for her husband and father she was willing to give up a brief life with Aragorn, but then she she chose to forsake one form of immortality for the other.
That is the immortality of offspring! In this way PJ has actually moved the story closer to OSC type stories then JRRT. I find it interesting, in many ways the PJ version of the stories is better, more correct in final vision, perhaps less twisted by a life that held too much grief.
BC
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
I would just like to toss in my two cents on Tolkien's suppossed pessimism:
I object. As you say, Bean Counter, Tolkien's life was twisted by greif. But he kept going, which is the main message that I see in LotR, and the Ender series too. Things may seem impossible, there may be no dawn in sight, but you just have to fight on up Mount Doom, or perish in the attempt. You have to "take one breath, then let it out" (not exact quote but close, from Xenocide).
I remember very clearly reading a passage in RotK when I was feeling very very down. It's with Legolas and Gimli and possibly Merry and Pippin, and they are talking about last stands, and how the race of men has declined and how nothing men do seems really well done like, say, the beautifully carved gates of Minas Tirith. Legolas says(but more poetically) yeah, true, but the works of men will outlast everything.
And lets not forget the Scouring of the Shire. I know it was not in the movie, and wont be in the EE either cuz PJ didn't film it, however I think that it really is absolutley key to the story. Things are broken and unrecognizable and the one thing that the hobbits had to hold on to as they endured hardships far away (TT movie pippen: "after all, we've got the shire") is gone. How can you carry on? How can you retain the hope that after everything is gone, you can get it back? But the point is that they do. They manage it. And Frodo and Bilbo and Gandalf may have tired of Middle Earth and wished to pass away into the west, but they first accomplished more than anyone could hope for. The tone at the end of RotK...Ah! every time I am in tears. After everything, things go on.
Sam picks up his daughter Elanor and sets her on his lap, and there, surrounded by his family: '"Well, I'm back," he said.'
If that's not full of hope for the future than I don't know what is.
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
Whoa. Forget two cents, that was like, twenty dollars worth. Well, spend it wisely. Posted by Tonatiuh (Member # 6052) on :
I think the scouring of the shire is important and should of been filmed because it signified the dawn of the new age for hobbits not just men or elves far away the fight to free the shire is about an awekining of a people to embrace the dawn of a new age where they can become active members of middle earth not confined to the shire and not limited by there fore fathers complacency
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
Yeah, its important and I wish they'd put it in too. But I see their point. I think in the extended edition they could have put it in and people would be extatic, but in the in-theaters, suitable-for-other-than-LotR-freaks version for a movie, there are good arguments for not putting it in. I mean, even with the current ending (which to ME seemed like they'd LEFT OUT stuff)people were complaining that they'd thought it ended about five times before it actually did. To bad America is so uncultured. Posted by Mad Ogre (Member # 6071) on :
In case you have not seen this website: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm This is a crucial resource for any and all Tolkien fans. As for the comments about the Similarian - it really should be read before one reads Lord of the Rings. All through the LOTR, there are refrences made to names of great people and to legends... without having read TS, these names are meaningless. If you know who these people are that are being talked about, it adds a great deal more depth to LOTR.
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
Yes, Sil provides good background, but it is (and I say this as a person who's read it multiple times and loved it) rather hard to get through. Doesn't flow like LotR. So if those people who think LotR is hard to get through try Sil first can you imagine the result?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)