Good to see more folks who dare to be honest about what is possibly the most overrated author in Fantasy history. Tolkien was a good storyteller, not a writer imo, I've read loads of Fantasy authors who are easily better. I think liking Tolkien has become somewhat of a fashion statement after the films, somehow implying that reading him means you're really deep or some such. Notice though, that most of these "fashion fans" of his don't read any other fantasy books, or books at all for that matter...

I'm not opposed to the author or the films. In fact; those movies are among the best modern cinema or video can offer. I'm just thinking what if an even better story, written by a better author had been given that chance to shine on the big screen... 'starts to drool over the concept of a Betrayal at Krondor film...'

PS: I'm not talking about Robert Jordan if anyone wonders, writing an 800 page novel which can be adequately summarized in 3 minutes is not worthy of worship imo. I know the guy just died (and its sad for the fans and family), but it does nothing to redeem his writing.

How does being a good storyteller not make you a good author? An author, by definition, is most simply a creator of content. A writer has a job to conve, in words or other communicable ways, to get a message across to another person. Tolkien seems to do both of these objectives fine.

Tolkien is criticized for being a poor English writer, novel writer, and to have a lot of complaints against his novel 'setups' not being perfect.

I'm not sure I agree with your account that Tolkien is a bad author - I mean, you supported him to be a good author already, but just sort of took it away based on a technicality that doesn't have anything to do with being an author, but being an editor, literary grammar police, or a strict reviewer who ignores content and pays attention to the fact that having a paperback cover must mean the writer sucks, because it's nto hardcover.

I don't understand you.... you're on a bandwagon that doesn't exist.

(I've only read the first half of FotR, and I could really care less about Tolkien's image, but your reasonings seem way beyond flawed to discredit an 'author').

How does being a good storyteller not make you a good author? An author, by definition, is most simply a creator of content. A writer has a job to conve, in words or other communicable ways, to get a message across to another person. Tolkien seems to do both of these objectives fine.

Tolkien is criticized for being a poor English writer, novel writer, and to have a lot of complaints against his novel 'setups' not being perfect.

I'm not sure I agree with your account that Tolkien is a bad author - I mean, you supported him to be a good author already, but just sort of took it away based on a technicality that doesn't have anything to do with being an author, but being an editor, literary grammar police, or a strict reviewer who ignores content and pays attention to the fact that having a paperback cover must mean the writer sucks, because it's nto hardcover.

I don't understand you.... you're on a bandwagon that doesn't exist.

(I've only read the first half of FotR, and I could really care less about Tolkien's image, but your reasonings seem way beyond flawed to discredit an 'author').

I was mainly pointing out that he's overrated, which many would agree, just not those who haven't read anything in the genre besides Tolkien. I've read over 750 Fantasy novels, so I feel I have a pretty good selection from which to draw this conclusion instead of pulling it out of ass like many others could and probably would. Harry Potter is another series I feel gets undeserved attention along with Eragon series. HP is like "Oh this poor, single mom wrote this terrific book!" and Eragon is "Oh this must be the work of a prodigy for sure!". Tolkien gets cred for inventing the genre, which he kinda did, but others refined it. What I'm getting at is; your writing should be about the value and quality of the book rather than the fuzz revolving around your person or the circumstances under which the book was written, but such is not the case with these three examples (in my honest and somewhat educated opinion, that is).

I'm being picky because A: As stated above, I've read a whole lot of books in the genre (PS; I don't consider Harry Potter fantasy, it was just for examples sake), and B: I'm trying to make it into the bussiness myself with a script I've been working on for years so I'm being overly studious and methodical in my reading to detect ways I do not want to write. Simple as that. If you want to have a gander at those who helped refine the genre, I recommend Raymond E. Feist, David Eddings, Stephen R. Donaldson and Terry Brooks, all masters of their craft and pillars in the genre since its infancy. Now, if you choose not to follow up on my recommendations, that's fine by me. But don't call Tolkien by names he does not deserve for all his depth (which frankly is just too emphasized in LotR) before you've had ample time and sound basis for comparison. My father was easily the strongest man in the world until I started seeing weightlifting on TV or strongman contests. Broaden the horizon to get a clearer picture both near and from afar is all I'm saying.

I did not call Tolkien anything other than a good author, of which many can be. Your original post was to discredit writing techniques and the idea that being made a movie does not mean greatness - no, it does not, but consider the Bible and Tolkien in the same phraseof print production and you have to question why bringing movies in to it at all is grounds for making a point. Making movies has nothing to do with making books.

Take Star Wars, for instance... dozensupon dozens or more authors take on the SW cosmosand write stories that are certainly in greater depth and detail than George Lucas ever could have... it doesn't take away from the story at hand.

I could rant on Pong, about it being too simple and that better refinements are worth playing, but it's silly. Sure, it's true, but it's as if I would only want to stand on a pillar and preach how much more knowledgable I am than the other 500 million people who have heard of Pong but who have not heard of the Infinity Engine games.

As with most art forms, credit where deserved usually is given AFTER the person's death. Sorry to say it, but maybe your opinions of your authors will become realized in 80 years, just as that of Beethoven and Mozart, but there will always be people who discredit pioneers just for the sake of doing so.

I did not call Tolkien anything other than a good author, of which many can be. Your original post was to discredit writing techniques and the idea that being made a movie does not mean greatness - no, it does not, but consider the Bible and Tolkien in the same phraseof print production and you have to question why bringing movies in to it at all is grounds for making a point. Making movies has nothing to do with making books.

Take Star Wars, for instance... dozensupon dozens or more authors take on the SW cosmosand write stories that are certainly in greater depth and detail than George Lucas ever could have... it doesn't take away from the story at hand.

I could rant on Pong, about it being too simple and that better refinements are worth playing, but it's silly. Sure, it's true, but it's as if I would only want to stand on a pillar and preach how much more knowledgable I am than the other 500 million people who have heard of Pong but who have not heard of the Infinity Engine games.

As with most art forms, credit where deserved usually is given AFTER the person's death. Sorry to say it, but maybe your opinions of your authors will become realized in 80 years, just as that of Beethoven and Mozart, but there will always be people who discredit pioneers just for the sake of doing so.