Robert E Howard or J.R.R. Tolkien?

[starblaze]

Which one do you prefer? I realize that they represent two different types of Fantasy Genre. Howard's tales mainly being that of Sword and Sorcery and Tolkien being High Fantasy, but they have gained a considerable amount of popularity.

I many ways I have to admit to liking Howard more because I find him fun and captivating to read. Lord of the Rings is a classic to be sure, but Conan and Howards other creations have a more faster and exciting pace. I think it really comes down to a literary classic being compared to just fun reading.

But that is IMO.

[McCoy]

Tolkien, no contest.

[FenrisUlf]

Howard was my first love in fantasy, and I can re-read his works endlessly, so I'll have to go with him. Tolkien, as grand as he is, I could read once and that was it.

I just wish some of the current fantasy authors would read something other than Tolkien!

[arcady]

C.S. Lewis and Brother's Grimm. :p

Who, I would argue, have more influence on modern fantasy than either Howard of Tolkien. H & T influenced gamer fantasy, along with Leiber, Vance, and Moorcock; but none of these authors seem to have had much impact in literary fantasy outside of that fantasy written by gamers...

So, I would say I prefer the Grimms and Lewis, as well as Leiber.

[Lord Liaden]

I love them both, but for different reasons.

For Tolkien it's the depth of his world: the detail, the consistency, the sheer breadth of it. Just reading The Lord of the Rings you can hear the resonance of the mythic history that's gone before, infusing everything with a sense of depth. You can also hear the passionate love that Tolkien feels for his creation, which IMHO lends passion to the characters and their struggles.

Howard I love for his vivid, action-filled, colorful storytelling, full of nailbiting suspense, moody detail and larger than life heroes and villains. Nobody spins an adventure yarn better IMHO.

C.S. Lewis and Brother's Grimm. :p

Who, I would argue, have more influence on modern fantasy than either Howard or Tolkien. H & T influenced gamer fantasy, along with Leiber, Vance, and Moorcock; but none of these authors seem to have had much impact in literary fantasy outside of that fantasy written by gamers...

So, I would say I prefer the Grimms and Lewis, as well as Leiber.

Certainly the influence of the authors you cite is directly visible in the work of modern fantasy games, but wider influence on the genre fiction as a whole is of course more important. I agree that the Brothers Grimm had a profound effect on the conventions of fantasy, but the genre was largely languishing as popular entertainment before LotR revitalized interest in it. One of the earliest beneficiaries of that new interest was Howard, with republication of his short stories; and Conan remains perhaps the most recognized fantasy hero.

Lewis more popular and influential than Tolkien? I would argue that one back at you. ;) Both of them took themes and tropes from classic myth and fairytales and made them their own, and certainly rendered them more accessible to successive generations of authors; but I've seen more fantasy literature (including bestselling stuff) that's clearly a riff on Middle Earth than on Narnia.

[ThothAmon]

For me Fritz Leiber was the man.

However, if forced to choose between just those two it would have to be Howard as IMO Tolkien's writing is devoid of humour, satire and many of the more visceral emotions.

[GothKidSamurai]

Tolkien hands down. Though I still prefer Lewis to him.

For some reason I just can't read Howard. Or Lovecraft for that matter. Just boring to me.

[GothKidSamurai]

I'm the same way with Tolkien. I keep finding myself thinking: 'Ok, you've spent 3 paragraphs telling me about the leaves. Now tell me what the darn treant does!' :)

Yeah, gotta love the fact that art is like 95% subjective.

[prestidigitator]

I somehow can't seem to make myself read Conan stories. Nor Forgotten Realms novels. Heh.

Tolkien is my absolute favorite fantasy author. Marrion Zimmer Bradley ranks pretty highly as well.

[Nolgroth]

The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings were the first "adult" books I ever read. I would have to say that Tolkein has been the most influential on me. I like Howard as well as most authors from the Lovecraft circle, but I didn't particularly like the Conan stories as much as his "Cthulhu Mythos" stories.

Now, I haven't gone back and read the Conan stories in almost two decades so maybe my view on them would change with age.

[Nevenall]

I can read Tolken and Leiber again and again and get something new from them every time. Howard doesn't have that kind depth for me.

[keithcurtis]

Tolkein I can read over and over again. Howard has always been a chore. It's something I read because it seemed that I was supposed to like it. I've tried and it puts me to sleep.

Keith "YMMV" Curtis

[Trencher]

I like Tolkien the best. I also like epic fantasy better than sword and sorcery.

[starblaze]

In a cage match I would have to give it Howard. Tolkien was an old man but Howard was a big texan guy.

[Agent X]

In a cage match I would have to give it Howard. Tolkien was an old man but Howard was a big texan guy. Yeah but Howard was a little weird about his mom.

[gojira]

More than "a little."

Pardon my ignorance, but did Lewis do anything fantasy besides Narnia? I'm raking my brain and nothing comes to mind. Note that I reguard his Out of the Silent Planet stuff as sci-fi, not fantasy (YMMV).

[GothKidSamurai]

Out of the Silent Planet and Perelandra could be considered sci-fi. Not that I would, definately more fantastic than scientific, but I can see where people would get that idea.

Hideous Strength though is definately fantasy leaning though. It even features the most famous wizard of all time.

[arcady]

Pardon my ignorance, but did Lewis do anything fantasy besides Narnia?Narnia is all I know of, but I would argue the style in Narnia is a better match for 'non gamer literary fantasy' than the styles of Tolkien or Howard.

Howard's Conan though, is still closer to modern fantasy than Tolkien.

Tolkien's non human races just throw him so far from so much of fantasy, and his thin characterization is very unusual for the genre - much of which is far closer to Robert Jordan than Tolkien on that score.

[Yamo]

Howard. Most definitely Howard.

Tolkien was the forerunner of a particularly damaging conceit that has since infected fantasy fiction to a saddening degree. That conceit would be that the "world" has value independent of the characters and their stories. Tolkien created fantasy mythologies, languages and histories first and then wrote novels about them as a secondary pursuit. Howard was all about the story. Using Howard's method, no extraneous detail has any rightful place in a story if it doesn't bear directly on what the characters are dealing with at a given moment.

Tolkien viewed story as secondary to "world-building". Howard recognized that in exciting fantasy, "world-building" is, at best, a neccessary evil committed in pursuit of a thrilling story.

[Old Man]

That said, the 'replay value' of Tolkien stems directly from the depth of his worldbuilding. I prefer Howard's works (and Leiber's) as they are much more character-driven and interesting, but Howard's stuff never inspired people to publish thick books that contain nothing but maps of Hyboria, the way people have with Middle-Earth. Tolkien really gave the sense that Middle-Earth was a real place. This is a big appeal of his work that should not be overlooked.

[BigJackBrass]

...IMO Tolkien's writing is devoid of humour, satire and many of the more visceral emotions.

Must disagree with you there. The Hobbit in particular is packed with humour; The Lord of the Rings certainly takes itself more seriously, but Tolkien's sense of humour shows up in several of his other tales such as Farmer Giles of Ham, which is arguably lightly satirical too.

Not sure that I could pick a favourite between the two authors, though. I read Howard and Tolkien for different reasons and at different times. Both suffered badly from imitators who left the general public with the impression that Howard was all about mindless violence and Tolkien nothing but academic world creation, whereas the original stories show so much more. Both have their faults, however, with Howard rather caught up in his noble savage ideals and Tolkien sometimes seeming aloof from his characters, but I'm fond of each writer in their own right.

[GothKidSamurai]

Both have their faults, however, with Howard rather caught up in his noble savage ideals and Tolkien sometimes seeming aloof from his characters, but I'm fond of each writer in their own right.


Oddly enough, you hit the nail on the head as to why I prefer Tolkien. I like the approach where he backs away from the characters and focuses more on the world and the story itself.

And the most annoying part for me when trying to read a Conan story is Howard's constant preaching about barbarians and society and the like.

[BigJackBrass]

Thinking about Howard's tendency to over-praise the "savage," it came to mind that in some ways Tolkien does the same thing. In his writings "modern" peoples are often greatly reduced from their illustrious forefathers. However, Howard seemed frequently (throughout his writings, not just in the Conan stories) to take the view that civilisation is inherently bad, leading only to weakness and degeneration, whereas in Tolkien the earlier races were often more civilised than their descendents as well as being physically and, perhaps, morally superior.

[Mutant for Hire]

Tolkien tends to hail back to the classical view of there once being a golden age and we have fallen into dark and degenerate times. It's a pretty traditional view in a lot of cultures.

While I'm not sure that Howard ever read Rosseau, to some extent I think they shared the same romanticized view of the noble savage.

And I also tend to agree with some of the above sentiments. Tolkien was the master world builder, but Howard infused his characters and plots with an energy and vitality that Tolkien never managed. That said, there's a depth to the Lord of the Rings that the Conan stories lack. The flip side of that is that Howard was good enough that I for one don't care about that.

[arcady]

...but Howard's stuff never inspired people to publish thick books that contain nothing but maps of Hyboria, the way people have with Middle-Earth.On the other hand, 99% of all Conan out there was not written by Howard. He's clearly inspired something...

Nobody writes much about the characters of Tolkien in new stories, save for maybe some fetish fan-fic on the net - but those people will write about anything...

[Wilfred_Death]

Howard, Then somewhere down near to beating my head against a brick wall ( Some of my headaches get real bad - and I have tried it ) Tolkien.

I mean Tolkien is an excellent writer, fantastic settings well developed and all that. However you have the 10E6 Pt Gandalf type, 'triumphing' over the Hordes...........

I Find Howard the other way round.

For a critical Review of Tolkien's Middle Earth, read Michael Moorcock's article about Sauron & Co. Representing : Working Class Yobs, attacking the bucolic Middle Class represented by 'The Shire'

Most respondents write of Howard's Conan stories, of which there are only a few - ( But I think they are good )
I think you'd have to include:
Buckner Jeopardy Grimes, Solomon Kane, Kull Of Valusia, Bran the Pict and others.
Yes he does waffle on about Aryan Racial Purity and such and so is probaly "too non PC" to "Allow people to read":)

I like the Terror and Spectral dread that Howard creates.
Also as far as I know Howard never wrote a "Silmarillion" analogue and therefore is by definition "better":)

I find even Howard's poetry gripping, especially "That which will be scarcely understood"

And: I Hates Hobbittses!:)

[GothKidSamurai]

On the other hand, 99% of all Conan out there was not written by Howard. He's clearly inspired something...

Nobody writes much about the characters of Tolkien in new stories, save for maybe some fetish fan-fic on the net - but those people will write about anything...


But that has more to do with how aggressive the Tolkien estate is in protecting their copyrights.

[rayoman]

Tolkein I can read over and over again. Howard has always been a chore. It's something I read because it seemed that I was supposed to like it. I've tried and it puts me to sleep.

Keith "YMMV" Curtis


I agree with you Keith. I can read Tolkein over and over again. I like the Conan stories but I liked reading Robert Jordan written Conan novels better than Howards. I can't seem to get past the third Howard Conan book.

Now, saying that I liked Robert Jordan would imply that I can read the Wheel of Time series. I can't read more than about 10 pages then I put it down.

[prestidigitator]

I can read Tolken and Leiber again and again and get something new from them every time. Howard doesn't have that kind depth for me.
That is a really good point. To me it embodies the difference between a good piece of literature and a classic. In a classic, there is something for those of all age groups. There is a depth that one can keep learning from, over and over. There is something in the story that keeps making you stretch mentally, no matter how familiar you are with it. And Tolkien has more of this depth, this classical nature, than any other fantasy writer I have ever encoutered.

A better writer, in terms of the flow of story, the style, the level of immersion? Maybe. We can all differ over that. But in Tolkien there is something that goes beyond writing style into the realm of legend.

:drink:

[Trencher]

Oddly enough, you hit the nail on the head as to why I prefer Tolkien. I like the approach where he backs away from the characters and focuses more on the world and the story itself.
Yep Tolkiens characters are defined by what they do and that is not allways what I expect. Howards characters are allways very open to us, he often speak directly to the reader about the main characters motivation.

And why does some of the Howard fans attack Tolkien but not the other way around?

[Ghost Archer]

My father introduced me to Edgar Rice Burroughs when I was pretty young and through Tarzan, Conan the Barbarian. I loved the works of both authors and thought, in my immature mind, that they were the apex of adventure and fantasy. The thing was, at the time, I also considered Nero Wolfe and the Lensman books the apex of mystery and sci fi. Boy was I wrong.
In high school I tried to read tolkien, first the Hobbit then the LOTR. I have to say I gave up on both after only a few hours of reading. Where was the action? I did discover Asimov and Clark and Silverberg and I didn't read another fantasy book until many years later. While cruising the Indian Ocean, I got bored, having exhausted not only all MY sci fi books but those of everyone else on the ship as well, I asked my father to mail me something to read. Tolkien arrived and I was now several years older and more mature. I realized how shallow Burroughs and Howard had been.
Over the last thirty years I have read Tolkien's LOTR and Hobbit at least 20 times. It is almost a yearly thing for me. When Silmarillion was published I had to struggle through it the first time, but now it has become a nearly annual read as well. How do I judge whether I prefer Horward or Tolkien? I have NEVER read a Conan novel twice. In fact for me to read a book twice at all is something of an anomally.
As for other fantasy writers? I am afraid I have given up the genre after seeing a huge flood of various D&D type crap in the late '70's and '80's. The only acception to this being, David Eddings. I have read all of his books exactly twice.

[GothKidSamurai]

And why does some of the Howard fans attack Tolkien but not the other way around?


Before I fully wrapped my head around the concept of how highly subjective art really is, I bashed Howard whenever I could.

[arcady]

As for other fantasy writers? I am afraid I have given up the genre after seeing a huge flood of various D&D type crap in the late '70's and '80's. The only acception to this being, David Eddings. I have read all of his books exactly twice.I went through the same thing for the same reasons.

I tried reading a novel by Elminsterwood (Ed Greenwood) -Azure Bonds or something like that- and I tried reading the fourth seires of Dragonlance books about their nieces, nephews, or something, and after that I couldn't even read a newspaper for three or four years...

Some switch in my head just literary shut off. It was like the part of mind that wanted literature said 'this is so bad we're turning off the power and shutting down the plant'...

I didn't get back into reading until I found the author Barbara Hambley and her novel Dragonlance. After that for a good decade I just flat out refused to touch anything by a male author - fearing a repeat of what I'd been through with the TSR books...

But I'm past that now, although I still avoid gamer fantasy like I would a crack-ho on Capp street... There are some things that well, it's just not worth the risk of catching. :hush:


What I would recommend is not avoiding fantasy, but spending about three to four hours in your local Borders / Barnes & Noble with a stack of maybe ten books from authors you've never read nor heard anything about, and narrowing it down until you get just one. Do that for your next several reads, and make sure each is as different from the last as possible. After that, you may manage to find a 'way back in' to enjoying fantasy literature again. That's about what I did - with the novels I read after Hambley's. I only grabbed Dragonsbane because of the cover art (a dragon holding a woman in it's claws) and a blurb about saving a dragon from an evil princess or something like that... :p

[tkdguy]

I enjoyed reading both Tolkien and Howard. I have to go with Tolkien, though, simply because his writings definitely changed my perception of the world. I found the entire creation story and the struggles of the Noldor in The Silmarillion so exciting, most of my characters in AD&D were elves or half-elves (I didn't learn to play HERO until much later).

[Badger]

Nowadays, Tolkien. 10 years ago, Howard. Tastes change somewhat. Though I dont mind either. Still rather read them than the D&D stuff (what little I have read of them, best left unsaid). Technically my tastes usually run more to sci-fi and the occasional Western than fantasy (though I do like some fantasy too). Anyway, at this time Tolkien.


Course, when I first saw this thread, I briefly thought of Conan being dropped onto Middle Earth. Conan driving through orcs of Middle Earth, would be interesting. Though I could see him getting on Gandalf and Co.'s nerves pretty quickly. And the costumes of some of the women in Conan stories would seem to a bit......er.....indecent for the setting. :nonp:

[Spence]

I consider any comparison of the two to be an apple and oranges thing. They both wrote and inspired genres that I enjoy. No matter who wrote them (T or H or imitators).

I have found I really enjoy adapting H's style stories to gaming much more that T's.

[Old Man]

On the other hand, 99% of all Conan out there was not written by Howard. He's clearly inspired something...

Nobody writes much about the characters of Tolkien in new stories...

I must disagree--surely Tolkien has inspired at least as many authors as has Howard. The only difference is that they can't call Legolas by name lest they be sued into the ground.

[Markdoc]

Both. I can (and do) re-read both authors (and I don't re-read most of the stuff I have read).

Of the two, there's no question Tolkien was the most influential - Howard's work languished out of print for many years until Tolkien's success kickstarted the modern fantasy genre.

Of course, Howard has inspired all too many barbarian pastiches since he was revived, but there's no doubt that without Tolkien, many of would be going "Conan who?"

cheers, Mark

[shadowcat1313]

I also like both for different reasons, and Howard died way too young, one often wonders where he would have taken things had he not taken his own life at a young age

I will take bad Howard imitators over bad Tolkien imitators any day

[FenrisUlf]

Thinking about Howard's tendency to over-praise the "savage,"... However, Howard seemed frequently (throughout his writings, not just in the Conan stories) to take the view that civilisation is inherently bad, leading only to weakness and degeneration

Well, I've read some of Howard's letters - and in them, you get a very different idea of what Howard meant with his 'Barbarism is superior to Civilisation' line. He didn't mean it as praise. To him it was something to despair over, that lawlessness and violence would win out over civilized restraint every time. He regarded both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan as 'barbarian' states, and attacked Lovecraft for defending their actions as 'historically necessary'. He seems to have been firmly convinced that democracy would die in the 20th century and be replaced by fascism and/or communism -- the ultimate triumph of barbarian values over civilized ones.

If you can find his poetry, his low opinion of barbarism becomes very obvious. He did argue, however, that someone raised in a barbarian society would be every bit as intelligent and capable as someone from a civilized society, if only because when 'stupidity = death' you either learn very quickly or don't pass your foolishness along to the next generation.

[Greg]

I didn't get back into reading until I found the author Barbara Hambley and her novel Dragonlance. After that for a good decade I just flat out refused to touch anything by a male author - fearing a repeat of what I'd been through with the TSR books...


Do you mean her book Dragonsbane? I haven't read anything by her lately, but I went through a phase where I read everything she wrote. If you're forced to read more D&D books Elaine Cunningham is an interesting read. Ignore what the cover says the setting is because she doesn't play D&D and doesn't care to.

[Vanguard00]

I can't tell you which one I like better right now. When I was much younger and read Conan books (and comics) it was easy to say. Then I read Tolkien, and my #1 favorite was found. Then I read a few thousand other books, and reread Tolkien and Howard both.

If I had to choose between the two right now I'd say "Howard", because I can read his books and still thrill to the adventure. I'll probably never read Tolkien again because of the movies (not that that's a bad thing!).

But my favorite fantasy author right now is probably David Gemmell, who resembles Howard in style much more than he does Tolkien.

So...um...what was the question again? :think:

[Old Man]

The question was, which classic fantasy author do you prefer--Fritz Leiber or Michael Moorcock?

[Vanguard00]

The question was, which classic fantasy author do you prefer--Fritz Leiber or Michael Moorcock?
Oh...well in that case, I like pie.











:D

[Old Man]

I find Gemmell to be hit-or-miss. I think his later work is much better than the earlier stuff, but I have a hard time figuring out which books got written when in his career.

[starblaze]

Oh...well in that case, I like pie.











:D

But what kind of pie?
Fruit or cream pie?

[Spence]

I find Gemmell to be hit-or-miss. I think his later work is much better than the earlier stuff, but I have a hard time figuring out which books got written when in his career.

I'll second you on that one. I have the same problem with several authors though. I used to travel extensively and discovered that if the book is published in three different countries, it will have three different covers and writeups. I can't really tell anymore if I have already read it or not. Of course several of my friends do like the free books they get when I score a duplicate.......:(

[Curufea]

George R Martin.

Well, it's currently applicable to the game I'm GMing.

[Trencher]

I read the Jerusalem man series by Gemmel it's very good. :yes:

"you think you can take all of us?" :lol:

[prestidigitator]

George R Martin.

Well, it's currently applicable to the game I'm GMing.
Martin is a very interesting writer. He's good. There's no question of that. His ability to detach himself from characters and kill them off in an instant is...almost unique. I'll admit I have been waiting for his next, "Song of Ice and Fire," book to come out, anxious to see where he takes it (and if he can take it anywhere what with just about every character gone!). :)

[Fitz]

I've read both, and enjoyed both, but I reread Tolkien (including his posthumously published stuff) over and over and over. I reread Howard's Conan stories too, but not to the same extent, and I've read little of Howard's other fiction; it's the character of Conan which appeals to me more than Howard's writing per se.

To me, they're like the difference between wines -- Tolkien is a full-bodied burgundy, with subtleties and richness far beyond the initial taste. Howard is more like a pleasant bubbly; a little goes a long way and too much leaves you bloated. They're both fun, but in different ways.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Martin is a very interesting writer. He's good. There's no question of that. His ability to detach himself from characters and kill them off in an instant is...almost unique. I'll admit I have been waiting for his next, "Song of Ice and Fire," book to come out, anxious to see where he takes it (and if he can take it anywhere what with just about every character gone!). :)
Right there with you. I read the first book as a galley, and it floored me. As did each subsequent book. I had to radically readjust my thinking to accept the fact that there is NO character that is obviously immune to being killed off, usually in a rather abrupt fashion. At this point I'm playing the "where does it go next" game too.

I just wish he'd freaking write a bit faster. His time interval between books is killing me.

On the original topic... Tolkien. No question.
The man still amazes me. I first read LotR in 3rd grade. Bought the set in 5th. I tried the Silmarillion in 6th grade and it boggled me.
Now, many years later, I have studied history, mythology and read direct translations of a LOT of european epic poetry, and REALLY appreciate how cool the Silmarillion really is. Like many others I keep getting new bits and nuances out of rereading Tolkiens work.
I was led to most of the other classic early fantasy authors from the bibliography of AD&D, and thus first encountered Howard, Lieber, Lovecraft, E.R.B.and Moorcock all around the 6th grade as well, and have a deep fondness for all of them. They all are quite different, and have their own strengths and weaknesses. Of the list, Fritz Leiber probably has to own my 2nd place spot.

[odinraven]

None of us would be on this stinkin forum if it wasn't for Tolkein. His work directly inspired the first true RPG. The richness of his world in which many things could happen in the same mythos and the reader could imagine not just the story but the entire world made the RPG a logical step. I've never read Howard so i can't say whether he's a "better" author (meaning i prefer him, not that he's "better") or not but you gotta appriciate your roots. Frankly i think it reflects GMing and prefered playing style. Both would make awsome GMs. Tolkein for world development and Howard (i'm guessing) for action and serious butt kick (kill the monsters take their stuff) gaming. I would rather have Tolkien most days. Then again everone loves kicking some monster butt..... oh and cream pie rules any day:doi:

[Mutant for Hire]

There are elements of Howard, Tolkien and Vance in first edition D&D, and maybe a little bit of Lieber as well. My own feeling is that in a world without Tolkien, the development of the fantasy market would probably have taken a bit longer to go, and there would be fewer Tolkien-clones out there, more low fantasy than high fantasy, but it would have gotten there eventually.

There is quite a bit of fantasy that was pre-Tolkien or wasn't inspired by him. I tend to think that the dependence of fantasy on Lord of the Rings is a bit exaggerated.

[BlackSword]

I like em both. Tolkien does a great job with world building and description. Howard is visceral, his writing is action and all about the character. Tolkien feels like the characters are there to showcase the world, while Howard uses the world to showcase the characters. The drinking analogy I would use is that Tolkien is a fine scotch meant for sipping, Howard is tequila, meant for slamming.

[JDHMorgan2003]

I'm going to disagree on Howard's worldbuilding. He did a credible job on worldbuilding, and I think it's much easier to access. Most of it comes from National Geographic (i think). Unlike Tolkien, Howard's world of Hyboria is very completely described. Tolkien only covered the Northwest section of Middle-earth, leaving everything else undefined. I find Howard's description of Hyboria much easier to work with, as I can find analogues for most every place Conan or his contemporaries adventure.

[BigJackBrass]

May I interject a vote for gooseberry pie at this stage?

[Mutant for Hire]

I'm going to vote for rat pie, as my favorite fantasy world is the Discworld.

[Curufea]

Rat pie is only for dwarfs. Or Corporal Carrot.

[Old Man]

I'm going to disagree on Howard's worldbuilding. He did a credible job on worldbuilding, and I think it's much easier to access. Most of it comes from National Geographic (i think). Unlike Tolkien, Howard's world of Hyboria is very completely described. Tolkien only covered the Northwest section of Middle-earth, leaving everything else undefined. I find Howard's description of Hyboria much easier to work with, as I can find analogues for most every place Conan or his contemporaries adventure.

Well, Howard's world is more accessible, but only because it's a warped version of the real world. So yeah, you know exactly what a Vendhyan looks like and how she dresses, but that's because you know Vendhya == India. Even the general geography is the same.

Tolkien's world is much more original. He ripped off a lot from various mythologies, but he invented far more of Middle Earth than Howard did of Hyboria.

That said, Hyboria does benefit from being more 'fleshed out' simply because of the National Geographic effect. For this reason it is, in many ways, a better setting for stories and RPGs.

[Susano]

Howard. I like the pacing and characters. Basically, he's a lot more "fun" to read.

Tolkien creates a rich, well-detailed world, and LOTR is a true epic, but it is rather slow to work one's way though.

[GothKidSamurai]

Howard. I like the pacing and characters. Basically, he's a lot more "fun" to read.

Tolkien creates a rich, well-detailed world, and LOTR is a true epic, but it is rather slow to work one's way though.


Odd, it takes me about a week to wade through a typical Conan story. Where-as these days I can bust through the entire LotR trilogy in a month or less.

[Susano]

Odd, it takes me about a week to wade through a typical Conan story. Where-as these days I can bust through the entire LotR trilogy in a month or less.

I could read a volume of Conan (such as the new books) in about a day or so. LOTR would take the better part of a week or more.

[BlackSword]

Well, Howard's world is more accessible, but only because it's a warped version of the real world. So yeah, you know exactly what a Vendhyan looks like and how she dresses, but that's because you know Vendhya == India. Even the general geography is the same.

Tolkien's world is much more original. He ripped off a lot from various mythologies, but he invented far more of Middle Earth than Howard did of Hyboria.

That said, Hyboria does benefit from being more 'fleshed out' simply because of the National Geographic effect. For this reason it is, in many ways, a better setting for stories and RPGs.
Old Man stole my rebuttal. :weep:

I was thinking about this as I wrote my first post. Hyboria is large, Howard has lots of maps and does a good job describing the world Conan lives in. As Old Man said, its pretty much Earth, or old Earth cultures with the serial numbers removed and fatasized. When Conan has a layover in a Stygian city the reader automatically knows what to picture because Howard uses a few key phrases in his description to let the reader know Stygia = (evil) Fantasy Egypt, got it.

I would say Tolkien used the myths and stories as a foundation and then built up from it. Howard repainted the picket fence. Both are legitimate, they had different goals, and both did an excellent job of telling their stories.

[BlackSword]

I could read a volume of Conan (such as the new books) in about a day or so. LOTR would take the better part of a week or more.
The new books are nice, I usually read them over a week, reading one story a night before bed (much better dreams then when I read Lovecraft that way). The only one I didn't dive into was Bran Mak Morn, his character didn't capture me as much, but Soloman Kane was a nice surprise. I thought it was a silly concept to start out with but on the final page I was sorry to know I had finished all the Soloman Kane stories.

[Susano]

The new books are nice, I usually read them over a week, reading one story a night before bed (much better dreams then when I read Lovecraft that way). The only one I didn't dive into was Bran Mak Morn, his character didn't capture me as much, but Soloman Kane was a nice surprise. I thought it was a silly concept to start out with but on the final page I was sorry to know I had finished all the Soloman Kane stories.

Yeah... Kane was a guy I could read a lot more about.

[starblaze]

I always felt that Solomon Kane was a good example of a Paladin character.

[Jeff T.]

Though I could see him getting on Gandalf and Co.'s nerves pretty quickly.

Heh. My take on the Fellowship and Conan easily leads me to think it would be the other way around.

It's Howard for me...easily one of my favorite authors...I've actually written some papers on him and even did a public speaking presentation on his life.

The argument seems to come down to a style one prefers:

Howard = action/suspense
Tolkien = description/world-building

I suppose it depends on which you prefer. While Howard's Conan may be the single most (in)famous fantasy character (Hercules maybe?), clearly Tolkien is second only to Greek/Norse mythology as the greatest fantasy influence there ever was.

[Susano]

The question was, which classic fantasy author do you prefer--Fritz Leiber or Michael Moorcock?

In all seriousness... if forced to pick between the two....

Leiber. I found Fafhd and the Grey Mouser much more fun than Elric. OTOH, Elric is the only Moorcock I have been able read.

[Sword-dancer]

Both, not one of them is better IMPOV than the other, as long as you read REHs Originals, not the Camp/Carter Versions.

The Barbarian in REHs Cthuluverse isn`t necessary a cimerian pict, or Northmen, he could be a frankish knight, an english puritan with a rapier or an american about 1900.

His strength don`t ly necessary alone in his muscles, but in his refusal to yield, his readiness to fight his enemies, even creatures from the stars without surrender.
Fight or die, but never yielding or surrendering on his knees perhaps but fighting on his knees.
With a sense of loyality to his friends, for the reason they are his friends.

But if you ask me hich author had most influenced RPG...
I would say Poul Anderson, Ogier Danske(Three hearts) was the first Paladin, he encountered the first troll and so on, the sword he searched was holy , the Story of the broken sword, a blade imbued with evil.

[Susano]

Both, not one of them is better IMPOV than the other, as long as you read REHs Originals, not the Camp/Carter Versions.

a.k.a. L Sprauge de Crap.

[GothKidSamurai]

A Howard Conan story is about 20-30 pages long. I certainly hope it doesn't take you a week to read that. :)


That's kind of my point man. I'd read like five pages and be so utterly bored I'd put it down until the next day and try to wade through it again.

[keithcurtis]

The question was, which classic fantasy author do you prefer--Fritz Leiber or Michael Moorcock?
Michael Moorcock.

Keith "Blood and Souls!" Curtis

[UltraRob]

His strength don`t ly necessary alone in his muscles, but in his refusal to yield, his readiness to fight his enemies, even creatures from the stars without surrender.
Fight or die, but never yielding or surrendering on his knees perhaps but fighting on his knees.
With a sense of loyality to his friends, for the reason they are his friends.


I think those are the Lyrics to a MANOWAR song....Now there's a band that owes REH royalties!

Rob

[keithcurtis]

There are elements of Howard, Tolkien and Vance in first edition D&D, and maybe a little bit of Lieber as well.
Actually, if you read through first edition D&D (the little brown books), there's a lot of Burroughs in there too. John Carter is mentioned in an example, and the encounter tables even list things like Green Martians and Banths.

Keith "I kid you not" Curtis

[AndyStaples]

This is a really mean thread!

First I'm asked to choose between Howard and Tolkein, then between Moorcock and Leiber.

I refuse! I won't, shan't and can't choose between them - I love them all.

So there. :p

[Lord Mhoram]

To answer the original - Tolkien, no contest.
What Howard I've read was a chore, and not enjoyable at all. I prefered Terry Brooks' Shannara over Howard.

The question was, which classic fantasy author do you prefer--Fritz Leiber or Michael Moorcock?

Can I choose none of the above. I hated what I read of both of them. The four Fafred/Grey Mouser books left me bored to tears (I read so much because everyone kept saying how good it was). The 4 or 5 Elric books I forced my way through left me feeling annoyed that I spent so much time reading something I didn't like. :thumbdown
Needless to say, I've avoided and Swords and Sorcerery and stuck to High Fantasy since then.
Give me Donaldson, Eddings, Brust, Turtledove, or heaven help me Jordan over Howard, Leiber or Moorcock. :D

I enjoy the Martin stuff, but gave it up, because it was just to dang bleak. When it's done, and if there is a happy ending, then I'll pick it back up and read it. Otherwise, I'll pass.

[keithcurtis]

I listened to about half of A Game of Thrones, while painting the map for the RPG. I really didn't have time to read the novel before painting, and figured I could listen to it while I worked. I had a searchable pdf copy of the book for reference as well. I'm sorry to say that I just couldn't get into it. I really loved the Wild Cards series, but applying the same approach to fantasy (graphic violence, kinky sex, screw-you-every-man-for-himself politics) left me cold.

I'm a Martin fan, but I could leave Song of Ice and Fire lying on the coffee table.

Keith "Gimme Pratchett" Curtis

[GothKidSamurai]

I listened to about half of A Game of Thrones, while painting the map for the RPG. I really didn't have time to read the novel before painting, and figured I could listen to it while I worked. I had a searchable pdf copy of the book for reference as well. I'm sorry to say that I just couldn't get into it. I really loved the Wild Cards series, but applying the same approach to fantasy (graphic violence, kinky sex, screw-you-every-man-for-himself politics) left me cold.

I'm a Martin fan, but I could leave Song of Ice and Fire lying on the coffee table.

Keith "Gimme Pratchett" Curtis


Yeah, I definately think they are "good" books. But I don't enjoy reading them. And being in school my life is filled with enough unenjoyable stuff. I want my fiction to be entertaining, not depressing.

[Susano]

To answer the original - Tolkien, no contest.
What Howard I've read was a chore, and not enjoyable at all. I prefered Terry Brooks' Shannara over Howard.

Funny, I have the totally opposite opinion. I greatly enjoy Howard's stuff and find Shannara to be one step above toilet paper.

[Lord Mhoram]

Funny, I have the totally opposite opinion. I greatly enjoy Howard's stuff and find Shannara to be one step above toilet paper.

I think Shannara is one step over toilet paper as well. I was using that point to illustrate how much I hated Howard. :D


Although to be honest I have to say Shannara was badly written but that Howard was not to my taste, so I disliked it, so it isn't really a fair comment. I was just trying to be obnoxious and funny.

[Susano]

Although to be honest I have to say Shannara was badly written but that Howard was not to my taste....

Being a product of his times, Howard is not to everyone's taste, to be sure. Same as Lovecraft. Oh, and to say Shannara was badly written is sort of like saying Venus has a problem with air quality. :D

[Seraphym]

Tolkien, no contest.

Ditto. While I like the brevity of Howard's descriptions, I find the depth of Tolkiens concepts far outstrips anything Howard can muster.:king:

[Seraphym]

Which one do you prefer?

How about a poll? Wading through all these posts is a chore.

[Seraphym]

In all seriousness... if forced to pick between the two....

Leiber. I found Fafhd and the Grey Mouser much more fun than Elric. OTOH, Elric is the only Moorcock I have been able read.

Leiber is better IMB. I read Elric and a few of the Eternal Hero spinoffs. I got bored with all the respins. Enough Joseph Campbell already.

[Old Man]

Leiber is generally better. Of all the Eternal Champion stuff only Elric is actually any good, and even that is hit-or-miss. Apparently it was originally written as a magazine serial, or something, so the series is very uneven. The Elric books right after the first six are about the best--Fortress of the Pearl, and Revenge of the Rose. Lately it's gotten to where it seems like Moorcock hates writing Elric.

Moorcock has written some other good books. The Dragon in the Sword is about the best non-Elric Eternal Champion story. Gloriana is also very good.

[Old Man]

What Howard I've read was a chore, and not enjoyable at all. I prefered Terry Brooks' Shannara over Howard...The four Fafred/Grey Mouser books left me bored to tears (I read so much because everyone kept saying how good it was). The 4 or 5 Elric books I forced my way through left me feeling annoyed that I spent so much time reading something I didn't like...Give me Donaldson, Eddings, Brust, Turtledove, or heaven help me Jordan over Howard, Leiber or Moorcock....I enjoy the Martin stuff, but gave it up, because it was just to dang bleak.

You realize that if we ever actually meet, one of us is going to have to die.

[Curufea]

Urhg - Eddings. First series good, but I have difficulty maintaining respect for an author that plagiarises himself. Recycling dialog, plots and not even bothering to have different kinds of characters in a story.

[Sword-dancer]

a.k.a. L Sprauge de Crap.
I don`t expect the translation had positive effect of the quality.

[Lord Mhoram]

You realize that if we ever actually meet, one of us is going to have to die.

I do believe that has come up before when our taste in writers (or music perhaps) collided on another thread. :)

[Lord Mhoram]

Urhg - Eddings. First series good, but I have difficulty maintaining respect for an author that plagiarises himself. Recycling dialog, plots and not even bothering to have different kinds of characters in a story.

I read him in the same way I watch an old well loved movie - a pleasent afternoon distraction- his stuff is pleasent and relaxing, but not exactly high art. He admits that as much himself, which I respect.

I get the feeling that after finishing the Mallorean, he wanted to write a book with Mandolloran as the main character but couldn't because the character was too stupid, so he invented Sparhawk.
Aside from those 4 series, I've not read anything else by him.

[Sword-dancer]

Eddings strength lies in his characters,not in his stories.

[Vanguard00]

I firmly believe there's a place for all these authors. Eddings, for example, is a nice diversion. Tolkien requires commitment. Most of the other authors mentioned reside between the two, IMO.

Howard, Tolkien, Lieber, Moorcock...um...there was another on my list, but I forget who it is--anyway, I recommend reading at least some of their stuff, if not all of it, to any fan of the genre, because they helped put the genre on the map. You could, of course, argue many other authors into the list (and some probably deservedly so), but these were my favorites growing up. I also devoured Glen Cook, Eric Flint, the "Thieves' World" series, Katherine Kerr, Robert Asprin, Eddings, Donaldson, and even Piers Anthony (hey, I was young!) through the years.

Now that I'm older my preference is to read Gemmell, Martin, Stackpole and (now) Butcher. Honestly, at the moment there isn't anyone else that makes me automatically reach for a book if I see his/her name on it. I read dozens and dozens of books every year, but only a few authors really make the grade these days.

[Lord Mhoram]

Now that I'm older my preference is to read Gemmell, Martin, Stackpole and (now) Butcher. Honestly, at the moment there isn't anyone else that makes me automatically reach for a book if I see his/her name on it. I read dozens and dozens of books every year, but only a few authors really make the grade these days.

Yeah. I hear that, my short list at this point is Turtledove (as long as it isn't in his alternate Civil war won timeline group of series), Steven Brust and Donaldson. Maybe Dan Simmons too.

[Lord Mhoram]

Eddings strength lies in his characters,not in his stories.

Yeah completely - I like rereading them because it is like visiting old friends.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Yeah. I hear that, my short list at this point is Turtledove (as long as it isn't in his alternate Civil war won timeline group of series), Steven Brust and Donaldson. Maybe Dan Simmons too.
Brust is on my shortlist too.
Damn good author.

[prestidigitator]

I enjoy the Martin stuff, but gave it up, because it was just to dang bleak. When it's done, and if there is a happy ending....
Heh. Don't count on it! But that is half the fun. :D

I rather enjoy it (until he starts going off on the Princess :grumble, grumble: ...can't wait for that one to die, though I have the feeling it may not happen) because it makes you rather thankful for your own boring existence....

[FenrisUlf]

Leiber is generally better. Of all the Eternal Champion stuff only Elric is actually any good, and even that is hit-or-miss. Apparently it was originally written as a magazine serial, or something, so the series is very uneven. The Elric books right after the first six are about the best--Fortress of the Pearl, and Revenge of the Rose. Lately it's gotten to where it seems like Moorcock hates writing Elric.



Myself, I like Moorcock too, sorta -- though to me the first few books are the best (the ones published in the two big omnibus SFBC editions, where poor old Elric gets whacked by Stormbringer at the end). But I must admit, I have some fondness for both Hawkmoon and Corum as well, at least the first series of each character. The later ones, I get the idea Moorcock wrote them just to kill the characters off in a nasty fashion because he could.

[Zed-F]

I've never read Howard, so I'd have to go with Tolkein by default. Although, I did read one book by Gemmel, and it left me unimpressed, so if Howard is similar, I expect I'd be similarly unimpressed with his work.

I enjoyed the first Eddings series (Pawn of Prophecy - Enchanter's End Game) and have read the Malloreon and the two Sparhawk trilogies, but I'll agree his work is pretty self-derivative. I'm glad to hear he has an honest opinion of his own work.

One author that I do really like is Guy Gavriel Kay. The Fionavar Tapestry is one of the most emotionally powerful series I've ever read. His other works vary in quality from good to excellent; I especially liked the Lions of Al-Rassan. If he does have a fault, it's that he can be overly clever at times.

Another author that I read recently is Jacquline Carey. Her Kushiel's Dart trilogy is pretty good, but a bit slow developing and probably not to everyone's taste.

Another author I haven't seen mentioned was Stephen R Donaldson. I bring him up not because I liked his Thomas Covenant series -- I didn't particularily -- but to point out that his SF is much better than his fantasy. He still writes pretty gritty stuff, but it seems to work better in a SF environment for some reason. The Gap Cycle was some pretty decent writing, and worth a look.

[Susano]

Myself, I like Moorcock too, sorta -- though to me the first few books are the best (the ones published in the two big omnibus SFBC editions, where poor old Elric gets whacked by Stormbringer at the end). But I must admit, I have some fondness for both Hawkmoon and Corum as well, at least the first series of each character. The later ones, I get the idea Moorcock wrote them just to kill the characters off in a nasty fashion because he could.

I will have to say, I did enjoy the Chronicles of Corum.

[Lord Mhoram]

Another author I haven't seen mentioned was Stephen R Donaldson.

I mentioned in my list of authors to buy automatically... and if you check out my username, that has a standing implied comment of what I think of his work. :)

His stuff polarizes people - most either love it or detest it, but not so many go "it's okay".
I think the Gap is possibly the best SF I have ever read.

[keithcurtis]

I mentioned in my list of authors to buy automatically... and if you check out my username, that has a standing implied comment of what I think of his work. :)

His stuff polarizes people - most either love it or detest it, but not so many go "it's okay".
I think the Gap is possibly the best SF I have ever read.
Put me down as one of the exceptions. I've got no strong feelings either way. I enjoyed reading Covenant (all 6), but probably wouldn't go through the effort a second time. (although I might have read the first three twice, back when they were shiny and new).

Keith "fence straddler" Curtis

[Markdoc]

Odd, it takes me about a week to wade through a typical Conan story. Where-as these days I can bust through the entire LotR trilogy in a month or less.


Say wha'? For me, a typical Conan story is 20-30 minutes (tops) and LoTR is 2-3 evenings (or one lazy weekend day).

How could you stretch a Conan story out to a week? Really, it's a serious question. I have the old sphere paperbacks, which have about a half-dozen stories in each and 2 of those makes an evening's reading.

cheers, Mark

[Susano]

Put me down as one of the exceptions. I've got no strong feelings either way. I enjoyed reading Covenant (all 6), but probably wouldn't go through the effort a second time. (although I might have read the first three twice, back when they were shiny and new)

I read the entire Covenant series twice. The second time I decided that keeping the books was a waste of my shelf space.

[Markdoc]

And as for Lieber versus Moorcock, again I'll take both. Lieber basically invented the fantasy-buddy and gritty fantasy genres, but the writing is just "OK" - and some the very last stories are rubbish. Moorcock is responsible for all that Law versus Chaos stuff, plus pretty much invented the angsty, irritating hero. Unlike Lieber, his writing has gotten noticeably better with time (see, for example, Gloriana) - but his latest Elric books are pretty awful. Instead of being angsty and violent Elric (Blood and souls for my lord Arioch!) is developing noticeable hippy qualities (Can't we all just get along? No? Well, I'll have to kill you then - but I want you to know I won't enjoy it.

Ick.

Still they're both worth a read. Unlike the Shannara series, which is only one step above toilet paper, because - based on personal experience - the paper is too rough...

cheers, Mark

[GothKidSamurai]

Say wha'? For me, a typical Conan story is 20-30 minutes (tops) and LoTR is 2-3 evenings (or one lazy weekend day).

How could you stretch a Conan story out to a week? Really, it's a serious question. I have the old sphere paperbacks, which have about a half-dozen stories in each and 2 of those makes an evening's reading.

cheers, Mark


Because I can't personally stand Howard's writing style. Nothing about the writing grabs at all. And the "hero" is so far different from me in values that I usually find myself wishing he'd just get killed and finish the whole thing.

[GothKidSamurai]

Still they're both worth a read. Unlike the Shannara series, which is only one step above toilet paper, because - based on personal experience - the paper is too rough...

cheers, Mark


Again, we differ in opinion here. I actually enjoy reading the Shannara books. Well, I haven't read any since I was like 16, but I remember them as being fun reads.

[Susano]

Again, we differ in opinion here. I actually enjoy reading the Shannara books. Well, I haven't read any since I was like 16, but I remember them as being fun reads.

So did I... until I tried re-reading Sword of Shannara.

[Vanguard00]

So did I... until I tried re-reading Sword of Shannara.
And here's the crux of it, I think.

How many of us have stated our opinion based on something we've read recently, as opposed to opinions based on something we read years ago.

For example, I haven't read Tolkien in years, but I think if I were to read him again, he'd fall to a lower place on my list. Butcher, Brust, Gemmell, Stackpole and others are near the top of my list because I've read them more recently. Donaldson is on my list, but I haven't read the 6 Covenant books since...well, since just after the 6th one came out. In my mind, as odd as they could be, I liked 'em. Same with Shannara stories. I still have fond memories of those books (at least 3 of 'em, maybe 4), but I don't think I could (or should) read them again. It might spoil it for me. Robert E. Howard is someone I wasn't a big fan of when I was growing up and getting into the fantasy genre, but I don't believe I fully appreciated the subtleties (much less the blatanties) of his style until I reread the books not long ago.

As we mature so do our tastes, styles and preferences. We change, and by default part of what changes is what we like and dislike. What was a "fun read" as a kid might annoy the bejeezus out of you now, and what was tedious and boring to you back then might be pure gold today.

Just some random thoughts on the subject.

[Susano]

As we mature so do our tastes, styles and preferences. We change, and by default part of what changes is what we like and dislike. What was a "fun read" as a kid might annoy the bejeezus out of you now, and what was tedious and boring to you back then might be pure gold today.

I think you are very correct. I read, and re-read Sword of Shannara over and over when I was younger (say high school, early college), but a few years back when I tried to reread my copy, I found I couldn't get past page 2. Within not pages, but paragraphs, I realized how poorly written the novel was and tossed it into my "sale" pile. Re-reading the 50th Anniversary edition of LOTR I received for my last birthday made me realize that A) LOTR is epic in scope, B) there is a grand total of one (maybe two) memorable female characters, and C) for the most part, there's not a lot of character development -- everyone has their role to play, and no one really questions it too much. Oh, and it is lightyears ahead of Sword of Shannara on the literary scale.

Howard has always been readable for me and the recent re-releases of his original, unedited stories, has made them even more readable (IMO). Yes, he had many views we would consider racist today (mainly dealing with then-accepted notions of racial destiny and so on), but he could write a swiftly moving yarn and certainly was a better story teller (and just as imaginative in his own way) as Edgar Rice Burroughs, who while an adequate writer, wasn't all that stellar a words smith.

Speaking of such things, I really should start to re-read my Elric and Corum collections... I might find myself unable to deal with his storytelling style and pitching them to the side as well. Interestingly, I have been reading some of my general fiction recently (Metro train rides are perfect for this), and have found The Pyrates to still be absurdly fun, and Treasure Island to be a great read (say... perhaps I should do a character sheet for Long John Silver... any votes?).

After Elric and company, I think it's time I tackled that Amber collection I picked up dirt cheap in the discount bin. The entire run of Amber stories in one book -- that should keep me busy for a while.

While on the subject of the "read it, dump/keep it" method; before I moved into my parent's basement for 2.5 years I did something like that -- reading various books and purging the ones I felt were not worth keeping. Now that I'm on my own again, I've started the process over, pitching not only various works of fiction (Zelazny's A Dark Traveling, for example), but comics trades (all of my Stormwatch and Authority), and even manga (say goodbye to my Dragonball collections!). The premise is simple? Does the book hold my attention? Is it a good read (this is hard to quantify, as this thread can attest)? Will it be worth it to pick up at a later date and reread again? If "no" then the book goes in the pile. Anything I can't finish (Shannara for example), gets tossed right quick, things I do finish (A Dark Traveling), I think about. For the record, I tossed A Dark Traveling because I felt it started well, then kinda went south towards the end. On the other hand, I kept Roadmarks, if only because I think it's a fun, fast read and has several amusing cameos (Doc. Savage is one, and I swear Jack the Ripper is another).

[Savinien]

Heh. Don't count on it! But that is half the fun. :D

I rather enjoy it (until he starts going off on the Princess :grumble, grumble: ...can't wait for that one to die, though I have the feeling it may not happen) because it makes you rather thankful for your own boring existence....

Hear, hear. I like the Martin stuff but don't like the portion of the Dragon whatchamajiggy. Pretty epic in scope and not afraid to kill off some characters.

What about China Meivile?

[Susano]

Hear, hear. I like the Martin stuff but don't like the portion of the Dragon whatchamajiggy. Pretty epic in scope and not afraid to kill off some characters.

What about China Meivile?

Perdidio Street Station is fantastic. The Scar slightly less so, if only because we've been to this world before and some of the wonderment has rubbed off. Iron Council I felt lacked a bit. It didn't flow as well, and seemed to have a rushed ending. However, he is a fine writer who can really create a detailed setting and highly memorable and colorful characters. However, his vocabulary is such some my find his books hard to wade through.

[Curufea]

Bwahahaaa - my work here is done ;-p

[prestidigitator]

Another author I haven't seen mentioned was Stephen R Donaldson. I bring him up not because I liked his Thomas Covenant series -- I didn't particularily -- but to point out that his SF is much better than his fantasy. He still writes pretty gritty stuff, but it seems to work better in a SF environment for some reason. The Gap Cycle was some pretty decent writing, and worth a look.
Woo hoo! I was holding myself back with difficulty, but as long as Sci-Fi came up, I'll just slip in that I hold Asimov to be the Tolkien of the genre. My absolute faaaavorite Sci-Fi author. Read him as a child, read him now as an adult. I sop up Asimov books at the used bookstore like a dry sponge (and still can't find some of the Empire books; might be time to try Amazon or something)! :D

[Steve]

Woo hoo! I was holding myself back with difficulty, but as long as Sci-Fi came up, I'll just slip in that I hold Asimov to be the Tolkien of the genre. My absolute faaaavorite Sci-Fi author. Read him as a child, read him now as an adult. I sop up Asimov books at the used bookstore like a dry sponge (and still can't find some of the Empire books; might be time to try Amazon or something)! :D

Hmm, if we are talking about sci-fi's answer to J.R.R. Tolkien and LOTR, wouldn't that be more likely to go to Frank Herbert and Dune?

Don't get me wrong, I love Asimov's writings, and I even read a lot of his science books alongside the sci-fi stuff he wrote. The man was a writing machine! The Foundation series was pretty amazing stuff.

But if we are talking about a sci-fi epic, I think that would be Dune.

Along the lines of this thread, if we are also talking about a Robert E. Howard equivalent in sci-fi, I think that would be either Larry Niven or Robert Heinlein.

[Dale A. Ward]

The thing is... Fantasy is Fantasy. The only differences between the various genres depends on how close you zoom in on the action.

For instance... if you stand way back and examine Tolkien's world, you'll see Epic Fantasy. But, start zooming in, focusing on one particular city, or even a specific person... while ignoring international events... you'll see gradually finer degrees of High Fantasy, Sword & Sorcery, and down to Low Fantasy.

Personally, I'd like to play in an adventure that focuses on the activities of a small group in a Tolkien-style world, having Howard-style adventures... perhaps having an effect on major events, but being totally unaware of it.

[Mutant for Hire]

Lord of the Rings was epic.

As for epic science fiction...

Lensman is one of the seminal works there, and for that matter, a lot more influential than a lot of people give it credit for.

Stranger in a Strange Land is another book which had a lot of influence, and for that matter if any SF book can be considered to be the counterpart to LotR in terms of influence on counterculture, that's it.

[prestidigitator]

Hmm, if we are talking about sci-fi's answer to J.R.R. Tolkien and LOTR, wouldn't that be more likely to go to Frank Herbert and Dune?

Don't get me wrong, I love Asimov's writings, and I even read a lot of his science books alongside the sci-fi stuff he wrote. The man was a writing machine! The Foundation series was pretty amazing stuff.

But if we are talking about a sci-fi epic, I think that would be Dune.
If we are talking just the epic distinction, I think Dune or Asimov's Robot series would come pretty close. In terms of knowledge of the genre, consistency of the threads of history, and world building, I see Asimov's universe as the corollary to Tolkien's Middle Earth. Don't get me wrong: I consider Dune (itself; not the whole series) to be a great classic too. Herbert just didn't have the detail and volume of work behind his stories; he didn't really need to, the way he told them.