LOTR's vs. Dragonlance

[Thoran]

Originally posted by Tancred: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Thoran: Other than the dragon angle with the Draconians they are similar in creation, although the Uruk's were Saruman's creation... not Sauron's.

Can't... let... it... go... gaaaah! Even though I know this'll contribute nothing to the discussion, I can't stop myself from pointing out that in the books, Sauron created the Uruks, the larger, stronger Orcs; the name 'Uruk-Hai' literally means 'the Orc people'. Saruman copied Sauron in this, as in soooo many things... </font>[/QUOTE]Thanks for the correction... I'm about finished rereading Silmirillion, then I'm going to hit the rings again for a refresher. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Morgeruat]

Originally posted by Tancred: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Thoran: Other than the dragon angle with the Draconians they are similar in creation, although the Uruk's were Saruman's creation... not Sauron's.

Can't... let... it... go... gaaaah! Even though I know this'll contribute nothing to the discussion, I can't stop myself from pointing out that in the books, Sauron created the Uruks, the larger, stronger Orcs; the name 'Uruk-Hai' literally means 'the Orc people'. Saruman copied Sauron in this, as in soooo many things... </font>[/QUOTE]{nit-pick}It was Saurons Master that created Orcs, again it's been too long since I've read the Silmarillian to recall his name.

Also Nazgul are the ring wraiths, not their mounts, Dragon Highlords are a much better parallel than dragons.

[philip]

Originally posted by Raistlin Majere: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by philip: Raistlin:I am an ultra-smart wizard, but I'm secretly evil. Har har har. Caramon, you're a doofus.

boo-yah </font>[/QUOTE]That was just to show the difference. I wouldn't normally use those reviews but you could see what I think is the biggest difference between LoTR and DL Chronicles

[Thoran]

Originally posted by Morgeruat: {nit-pick}It was Saurons Master that created Orcs, again it's been too long since I've read the Silmarillian to recall his name. Also Nazgul are the ring wraiths, not their mounts, Dragon Highlords are a much better parallel than dragons.

Nazgul... yup (but I think we all knew what we were talking about), not sure if the flying mounts of the Nazgul were ever named. Anyone remember?

Saurons master was Melkior(or Morgoth, two names same guy). He created the Orcs early in the Silmarillion, just like I believe Mhanwe (sp?) created dwarves.

Uruk-hai were a cross of Orcs and Goblins if memory serves. Tancred corrected me that they were created by Sauron in the book... which I didn't recall since it's been a couple years since I read it.

I think the Dragon Highlord/Nazgul parallel is a good one... except for the fact that dragons are far more formidable than the mounts the Nazgul used. Nazgul mounted on dragons would have been an unstoppable force on Pellinor. The Elves of Belariand had lots of trouble with dragons. They got beat pretty soundly by Melkior in their last battle on Anfauglith when the Dragons and other monsters took the field. It really took the Valar in the war of Wrath to clean house. At least that's how I recall it... the Silmarillion is a VERY long book, and dry as a popcorn fart.

[Night Stalker]

The Nazgul are more analogous to Lord Soth, the Death Knight. In fact, in the original Fiend Folio, the description of the Death Knight included that aside from being undead, there were only 9 known to exist.

Gary Gygod did way to much plagarism of Tolkien.

[SpiritWarrior]

Originally posted by Thoran: I see very little commonality between the two stories... other than the fact that they're both fantasy. </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> The Dark Queen = The Dark Lord, she has returned as he did and she is amassing a great army as he is.

All epic tales will have an evil bad guy(girl) who needs to be confronted by the hero's, that's standard EF form. They are usually bent on the conquest or destruction of the lives/lands of the hero's... and armies are good at doing that.

The Green Gemstone Man = Frodo and The One Ring, she wants the gemstone and he wants the ring. In order to get it they must find he who carries it and send all minions out to search for it because without it they cannot take physical form and walk once again in the realm.

Similar, yes... but not overly so. Frodo is the focus of one of the main story threads in the Rings, and the prime motiviations and challenges of his character are based on his internal struggle against the corrupting powers of the ring. I barely recall the Green Gemstone man from DL (read them all more than 10-15 years ago), but I seem to recall he was a side character who didn't even know what his importance was and played a overall minor roll in the story.

Tanis = Aragorn. Haunted by their own skeletons, they feel exiled from the world. They both fell in love with a an elven daughter yet have trouble reconciling these feelings. They both have 2 other lovers of which they are unsure about.

Yes some similarity here, Aragorn playes the roll of "dark hero", he's a character you'll see in a LOT of epic fantasy... along with Gandalf and others. Pure "goodie goodie" heros are boring.

The unicorn in the wood = The lady of the wood

I guess if you only take the LOTR books to form your opinion you might conclude there is similiarity here... but given the wide sweep of Galadrial's involvement in middle earth (from Belariand to Lothlorien), she's much more of a "player" in Tolkien's world than the Unicorn was in DL. Again there is similiarity but it's hard to say the Unicorn is not just a standard "mystical woodland ruler" character. You could equally compare it to the Wood Elf king in The Hobbit.

Draconians = Uruks, a half-breed, new to the realm and created for one purpose: to serve the dark queen/lord. A cross between 2 races with all the plus and none of the minus.

Other than the dragon angle with the Draconians they are similar in creation, although the Uruk's were Saruman's creation... not Sauron's.

Dragons = Nazgul, same terror, same stuff.

Dragons are quite a bit different from Nazgul. Nazgul are mounts... more akin to big flying horses. Dragons in the DL world were an intelligent species, in fact IMO they would be much better compared to the Dragons of Tolkiens world (and in fact they seem to be a virtual knock off of those dragons). The differences in dragons is that there are good Dragons in DL, in Tolkiens Middle Earth all dragons were decended from one baddie (Glamring or something like that, he's knocked off towards the end of the Silmarillion)... and they're ALL bad.

Beyond the character similarities/differences, the sweep and focus of the stories are IMO targeting different audiences. I read all my DL stuff as a teen, and enjoyed the heck out of those books. They're fast paced and exciting, with LOTS of Action, Humor, and good Good vs. Evil storyline. I tried reading some DL stuff recently though and found that the writing is a bit too simplistic for me, I believe the stories are intended for a young audience. There is a decided lack of subtlety or nuance in the writing, and certainly there's not the depth of worldbuilding and use of language that hallmarks Tolkiens works. I read LotR first as a teen also, and it was SLOW. I still enjoyed the story but I had trouble with a lot of the monotony. I think some of the pacing is really the only weakness in the story. However, when it came to Tolkiens world, I found he created it to an extent that I've never seen in another author. The depth of characters, the history that exists for each is amazing. As you read you almost need a copy of the Silmarillion, Appendices, and other writings handy for reference, so you can look up and understand all the historical context that he places the story within. Tens of thousands of years of history feed into his work, and it's not just icing... it's integral and constantaly referenced in the narrative. It's an amazing feat on Tolkiens part... and oh yea, he also whipped up an entire language on the side.

I guess to me it's the matter of depth, Middle Earth of the Rings has amazing depth for the work of a single author. There are other detailed worlds (forgotten realms), but I've not yet read another fantasy author who has managed to so totally immerse the "present" storyline that he's telling in the historical record for his realm.

Other than that LotR is classic Epic Fantasy, with much in common with earlier works like Beowulf. Any fantasy author who writes using the "Epic Form" will by default have much in common with earlier works of the genre. </font>[/QUOTE]Well I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then. For me the similarities are unavoidable. I think if you approach the topic with a kind of defensive intention toward a chosen book you will inevitably arrive at a personally satisfactory conclusion. I was no way biased against DL (actually loved it) before reading this trilogy but can't look upon it (this one trilogy I mean) anymore without comparing to LOTR's and perceiving it as a cheap copy.

I agree that all epic tales do have a bad guy in them but the bad guy is not always a god-like being who cannot inhabit the world unless he/she finds a certain person with a certain item and commands his/her armies to seek out that person and bring the desired item to them.

I think the dragons and the way they are portrayed in this specific series bear a great likeness to nazgul. No real justice is done to their great presence or awesome intellect and wisdom. They are more like mounts and tanks here as the nazgul were.

I would still say that the green gemstone man and Frodo are very alike being that they are both sought at all costs and represent the end if found. The only difference is the focus is not on him but our heroes. It's like Tolkien ignoring Frodo and Sam and focusing only on Gandalf, Aragorn etc.

After further research on the WOTC boards I have discovered that this DL series was sometimes coupled and promoted in connection with the LOTR's, especially in It's early release so like Brooks, they intended to write something in the tradition of the LOTR's.

[warnie]

saw this post and just had to put my five cents in.

In truth, I enjoyed the legends (the twins) much more than the first series, maybe that's just me, but the events seemed more fleshed out and real. Brotherly love is never easy or pure as our friends find out, though it does conquer in the end.

That being said, DL was and is a good read, its light bright and fun, its no tolkien, nor does it pretend to be.

Tolkiens work was so monumental, that in a sense every thing else lives in its shadows, all else is colored and affected by its influence. The Authors themselves admit it, the fact they have three books plus other bits and pieces are pure derivatives from the masters magnus opus. How could it be otherwise?

AS for boring, it used to be hard for me to get into the first one or two chapters, once however I had, I could never put it down. I can honestly reread it every few months and still not
cease to be inspired or moved, DL doesn't do that, sorry to say and that says it all.