# The Lord of the Rings Vs Magician!



## Woo (Mar 27, 2003)

Have any of you read Magician by Raymond E, Feist.
And what do you think of it compared to tlotr?
Would You agree with me that tlotr is the foundation & source of all Fantasy books to date?

Just curious because living in south london I find no one really into these kind of things!
How about you lot?


----------



## Gil-Galad (Mar 27, 2003)

I'll be short.Tolkien lays the foundation of everything and after him everybody tries to copy his world and to develop it.That sucks!!That is why I do not read other fantasy books.


----------



## Lantarion (Mar 28, 2003)

Well I don't believe other fantasy authors try to actually copy the Professor's work; he just created such high standards that whenever people get close to, or in different aspects pass, those standards they are accused of 'copying'. I have friends who loathe the clichés created by Tolkien: but one must remember that they were not cliché when Tolkien created them!


----------



## FrankSinatra (Mar 30, 2003)

*Yes*

Its like comparing 'Good Sex at 40' to the Karma Sutra.


----------



## gilgalad (Mar 30, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Gil-Galad _
> *I'll be short.Tolkien lays the foundation of everything and after him everybody tries to copy his world and to develop it.That sucks!!That is why I do not read other fantasy books. *



I think that's a dangerously broad generalisation. One of my favourite series of books is "The Sword of Truth" series by Terry Goodkind, which, while being fantasy, is completely removed from anything Tolkien ever wrote. Anyone who read them will I'm sure agree that Goodkind actually went out of his way to AVOID resembling Tolkien, inventing a host of new creatures et cetera instead of making dull copies of the ones in LotR like a lot of fantasy authors do. I guess these are the ones you're talking about, but it would be wrong to say all fantasy authors are like that, you'll miss out if you do.


----------



## gilgalad (Mar 30, 2003)

BTW, the highest praise i can give Magician is that I enjoyed it nearly as much as i enjoyed LotR. Feist went overboard though and got caught up in moneymaking, which led to a huge amount of substandard "Krondor" books being published subsequently.


----------



## FrankSinatra (Mar 30, 2003)

*Books*

I think the two books that followed 'Magician' were of a good standard, and very readable.

Its when current authors begin issuing prequels to sequels that it gets annoying.


----------



## gilgalad (Mar 30, 2003)

I agree, Silverthorn and Sethanon were very good, but after that it went downhill, with the exception of the first three about Eric von Darkmoor. After that though, bad bad books were the order of the day.

You can't go wrong with Terry Goodkind though, his books are brilliant.


----------



## FrankSinatra (Apr 2, 2003)

*Yes*

Its the same as the 'Shannara' series.

Prequels to sequels are irritating.

Though some could argue that point about 'Silmarillion' of course.


----------



## gilgalad (Apr 3, 2003)

The only difference is that the quality of the Sil is undeniable, while that of some of the Feist books is questionable at best.


----------



## Niniel (Jan 19, 2004)

I have just read the three Krondor books by Feist; I also have Magician but I haven't read it yet. I liked the books as a pastime, but they're absolutely not of the standard that Tolkien set. I was annoyed by the names Feist uses; it is clear he has not developed a real language system as Tolkien has. The languages all look like languages that exist on or world, and on top of that Feist borrows names from a lot of languages, that would normally not be spoken by the same people. I have seen names borrowed from English, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Maya (?) and some others, and of course also from Tolkien's languages (gloredhel, moredhel etc.). So Feist's world is just not as believable as Tolkien's.


----------



## Zale (Jan 20, 2004)

Having read many RE Feist books, I reckon that the first three that he wrote are the best, with Magician itself head and shoulders above the rest. It's a quality book that can't be ignored by anyone into fantasy.
Having said that, it's still nowhere near LotR in terms of originality, inventiveness, sheer scale, quality of language etc.


----------



## Niniel (Jan 29, 2004)

I have also finished Magician and Silverthorn now. I liked them a lot most of the time. Something that did annoy me was how bloody they were (especially the Krondor trilogy). The amount of arms and heads that were ripped off and 'fountains of blood' was really too much. You only have to look at Tolkien to know that you don't need violence to write a good fantasy book.


----------



## Zale (Jan 31, 2004)

Gore is a matter of style. James Barclay's The Raven series is horrendously bloody, but I still found it hugely enjoyable.


----------

