I issue the greatest challenge of them all!

[Gurm]

Bombadil was an aberration in LOTR, much as people have made a lot of him. Tolkien himself has admitted that he was only put there as an in-joke for his kids, and that he detracted from the story.

As for Robert Jordan... well, since his work is 100% derivative of Tolkien, and is only about half-done (at 8 volumes and counting), I've staunchly avoided reading it. I have no desire to start a series and wait 20 more years to finish it.

- Gurm

[thop]

I've just seen a trailer for the Two Towers and this seem like there will be A LOT of fighting going on in that movie. Kinda looked like Braveheart to me, only with far more people.

[Gurm]

Umm, yes. TTT and ROTK alternate between Frodo/Sam wandering (and sometimes fighting) and the others doing a whole lot o' ass-whooping.

READ THE BOOKS.

- Gurm

[Wombat]

The handy thing about the Bombadil plotline was that you got your first introduction to treants.

[efty]

Audio book? Err... which version, and in what language?

It is the one you sugested. Unabridged by Inglis.

As for Robert Jordan... well, since his work is 100% derivative of Tolkien

How can you make such claims when you have not even read one book. How typical of you!!!

[Wombat]

I have. It's true.

[efty]

You read just the first book. There are similarities, as expected of this type of book but statements like

his work is 100% derivative of Tolkien

are out of place especially by people that have not read the series. I challenge Gurm to read the first 3 books and make the same statement again.

[Guru]

I'm with eftychios on this one!

[Technoid]

Re: I issue the greatest challenge of them all!

Originally posted by Gurm
Well, ok. Maybe it's more like the penultimate challenge.

GO READ LORD OF THE RINGS.

Sure if you promise to read Integral Trees by Larry Niven

RIGHT NOW.

In your dreams

I'M NOT JOKING.

No you usualy arn't

- Gurm

[Gurm]

Technoid,

Already have (ages ago). I've read lots of Niven, in fact.

Eftychios,

Everyone that I've talked to about Jorden agrees - it's 100% derivative. And I already stated that I'm not about to get into a series that the author can't seem to wrap up. I did that once before (Orson Scott Card is no closer to the end of the Alvin Maker saga than when he finished the first book) and regretted it. I almost went crazy waiting for Eddings to finish the Mallorean. I'm NOT doing that again. However, I have skimmed them, as well as been given a huge running commentary by my good friend and my wife.

It's derivative. In-depth, engaging... sure. But original? No. Very little fantasy is. Authors like Eddings fully admit to taking everything they know about fantasy from Tolkien (albeit grudgingly). Authors like R.A. (Bobbo the Schnook) Salvatore claim to be original, whilst writing entirely about the AD&D universe, which is solely based on Gary Gygax's imperfect recollection of LOTR from school.

90% of Sci-Fi is based, at least in part, on Asimov. Similarly, 90% of fantasy is based on Tolkien.

That's just how it works.

As for the audio book you're listening to... what does "Unabridged by Inglis" mean? Are we talking about the BBC Radio production with Ian Holm (Bilbo in the movie) as Frodo?

Besides - audio books are... well... a sad substitute for real books.

- Gurm

P.S. Wombat - by Treants, you mean perhaps Ents? Sadly, no. Old Man Willow was just a crotchety tree. But you ARE correct in that you did get an introduction to several important things in the series. It's too bad that Bombadil was woven into them. Those important things are:

1. Trees (all living things really) can become "aroused"... very much a "nature vs. machina" argument. This becomes more apparent with the Ents' anger at Saruman for making "infernal machines".

2. Death is not a boundary. This is reiterated over and over again, but the Barrow Wights are quite a shocking reminder.

3. Animals are smart, and some of them are smarter than others. This is later driven home when Gandalf gains Shadowfax, but Bill the Pony and Fatty Lumpkin display almost human traits.

[Wombat]

by Treants, you mean perhaps Ents? Sadly, no. Old Man Willow was just a crotchety tree.

No, not Ents exactly. Oh, isn't the word huorns? Bombadil alludes to Willow's nature a bit, but Treebeard talked about Willow's forest, and also said how huorn's were largely Ents that had started to stagnate and sleep, and also talked about them often having unfavorable personalities. Couldn't you just see Willow as part of the forest that took the orcs?

[KvHagedorn]

1. Trees (all living things really) can become "aroused"

I suppose this is why it's known as a "woody"..

[Technoid]

Originally posted by Gurm


90% of Sci-Fi is based, at least in part, on Asimov. Similarly, 90% of fantasy is based on Tolkien.

That's just how it works.

- Gurm

What a truly narrow and inane view


let me guess....

Asimov is your favorite on the Sci-FI side and Tolkien on the Fantasy side

[BuddMan]

Originally posted by Wombat
No, not Ents exactly. Oh, isn't the word huorns? Bombadil alludes to Willow's nature a bit, but Treebeard talked about Willow's forest, and also said how huorn's were largely Ents that had started to stagnate and sleep, and also talked about them often having unfavorable personalities. Couldn't you just see Willow as part of the forest that took the orcs?

No, the forest that took the orcs came from the forest that Treebeard lives in (what's the name??). I always thought that the Willows may have somehow been the entwives. But then again I'm sure the Ents travelled pretty far in searching for them. Perhaps they went to the Havens like the elves did.

[Gurm]

Nobody knows what happened to the Entwives. *sniff*

Yes, Old Man Willow was likely a Huorn... either an Ent that became tree-ish, or a tree that became Ent-ish.

-----------

Technoid,

I'm not talking about "hard" sci-fi. I'm talking about "popular" sci-fi. Star Wars, Star Trek, et al - they all bear the marks of Asimov. He's far from my favorite author (although I have read a lot of his stuff).

And to imply that 99% of popular fantasy (is there "hard" fantasy, really?) is NOT based on Tolkien is... well... foolish. Between Tolkien and Le Guin they had fantasy pretty well wrapped up well before 1950.

- Gurm