Category: book Nook
I've read a load of different types of books, and over the past few years, something has occurred to me. Where I used to enjoy a book with a good plot that can present a good story from beginning to end on its own, I'm now realizing that it's just not enough for me! My most recent readings have been the Wheel of Time Series, and a stand alone book called "Elantris", which was written by a good friend of Jordan's: Brandon Sanderson. From his blog, I read that Sanderson's view is that the fantasy genre is too cluttered with chronicals and epics that just run way too long and leave the reader hanging while waiting for the next book. But I myself am finding that standalone novels, while good, leave me feeling empty and wanting more.
So after that bit of food for thought, I'm curious. What do you guys think? Are the epic fantasies of three books or more more fulfilling? Or do you like one book that tells a whole story, even if some questions are left unanswered? I'm well aware that some of the aspects of the super long novels in the epic fantasies can drag, and there's sometimes a good deal of info that you could really do without. I've wanted to pull out my hair a couple of times reading some chapters. lol But I'm eager to see what your opinions are. Standalone, or epic?
With regards to fantasy, I've read a lot of different "serieses". I find having a series can really help create a vivid, intricate world. You don't always have that ability as much in a single novel. It really depends on how in-depth you want your worlds. I know as a writer, I can't even fathom telling all I have to tell in a single novel. That said, I absolutely LOVED Elantris. I felt it was very refreshing. There was just enough there to keep me hooked without being bogged down by pages of lore. Similarly, the book the Talisman by Stephen King and Peter Straub, though it did have an excellent sequel, would have worked quite well as a stand-alone novel. While it was based in part on the Dark Tower universe, I read it well before I ever tried the Dark Tower, and it didn't matter.
As an aside, have you heard of Graphic Audio? They did an amazing dramatized version of Elantris; it made the book so much better.
Love epics. I could never finish reading Wheel of Time though but maybe someday I will. What did you think of the last book or is it even out yet?
For me, it depends what's in the series or novel, if the series or novel draws me, then I'll read it. I didn't like wheel of time, to be honest. I quite
enjoyed the lord of the rings, and am currently busy with the first book, Northern lights from the his dark materials series, and it's quite good.
Yep, I have heard of Graphic Audio and they definitely did a kick ass job with Elantris! I'm a writer myself... have been since I was six years old. And where the standalone books used to do it for me, I'm not even satisfied writing them as much anymore.
As far as the Wheel of Time is concerned, I don't find it quite as fulfilling as The Sword of Truth, but I still love it. And there's one more book coming out either later this year or earlier next. I'll have to check the blog I was reading about it. I'm definitely not going to say I won't read or write a standalone novel, but I find myself drawn more to epics/sagas/series. So I have to admit that, while Elantris definitely was refreshing, I'm keeping my fingers crossed for a sequel. lol
I really don't have a preference one way or the other, but then again, I'm still trying to figure out what I like in fantasy. Still, I've read mostly series, the Tolkien books, most of the Sword of Truth by Terry Goodkind, a scattering of the Discworld books and the Xanth books, too, because I love humor and satire of any kind. That's about the extent of it so far. I intend to reread Sword of Truth, perhaps this summer, all the way through if I don't get bored and want to just watch DVDs again. We'll see.
I would have to say that I prefer series over stand alone novels. Come to think of it, I don't think I have ever read a stand alone fantasy unless The Graveyard Book by neil gaiman counts. It does make it easier to build a world in a multi book series and you can show gradual character development much better in many books. I thought that Jordan did an excellent job with Rand's character in WOT with regards to gradual characterization. All of the things that made him the person he was by the end of Towers of Midnight probably would not have fit into one book.
I also like to return to characters that I already know; I would much prefer to return to a beloved character instead of having to get to know a entirely new set of characters. I have recently began to dislike movies and prefer TV shows instead for this reason.
Here are some series that are regarded as outstanding in the Fantasy Genre. I think that these series showcase the power that can be achieved with a series where a single novel would fall short.
The Malazan Book of the Fallen by Steven Erikson. I recently reread this series and loved it as much on the second read as I did the first time; I would say that it is my favorite series of all time.
A Song of Ice and Fire by George R. R. Martin.
The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant by Stephen R. Donaldson. this encompasses three series of three and four books each. They follow the same characters for the most part and are well worth a read.
I have been meaning to read Tigana by Guy Gavriel Kay. I have heard that it is an excellent stand alone fantasy work.
I really enjoy both. While waiting for the next book in an epic series, I find either other series, or standalones to fill the time. I love WoT, but have grown to dislike SoT, in part because the series was so bad. Some of the series and quasi series I like are the Xanth, Drizzt, and Mistborne series. I recently read the lamplighter series and the Monster Blood Tattoo series and enjoyed them both. I forget the name of the series, but it was by L. E. Modessit over a decade ago, and loved it...It had a great magic concept where white magic was evil and black magic was good, wish I could remember the name of the series...anyone remember?
so many books, so little time though...
I must agree with the above post. I really like both and I don't really think you can compare. It's like comparing a novel to a short story. Short stories are written in a completely different form than novels but they can be just as fun to read and make you think. With long series it is of course the amazing amount of time you can spend on reading them but still I'd say both styles are equal. I've read the Wheel of time, A song of ice and fire, The lord of the rings and more and it's just not the same as reading the Alchemist or Oliver Twist.
Epics epics epics all the way for me! I like being able to get into a _ow and really get to know the characters, and travel with them through their many trials and tribulations. An epic is a journey, where a standalone novel is but a field trip. I will not say there are no good standalone novels out there, but I find epics to be far more fulfilling. Plus, if I am reading an epic, I have a few books to go through before I have to decide what to read next. lol
Elantris? I have heard of it, but never read it. I shall have to check that out.
I really mostly enjoy reading both as well. it really just depends.
I like epics. My favorites include Lord of the Rings and Xanth, although I must admit that more recent insallments in that series have become sort of stale. And the basic plot of each book is the same. Character goes to the Good Magician to ask a question, then goes on a long journey and usually ends up married or at least on the road to marriage by the end of the story. Other series I like are the Fionavar Tapestry by Guy Gavriel Kay. I like the story bt I also like his concepts of power in that someone else nearly always pays the price. In the case of the Mages, for instance, it's the mage's Source who pays the cost eac time the Mage uses his powers. Another favorite series is David Eddings' Belgariad, which I just finished rereading, and its sequel, the Malloreon. I like the humor found throughout both series and I also like ow his Arcane arts are divided into different categories. Magic for instance is not the same asSorcery. Magic deals with the summoning and controlling of demons and is therefore extremely dangerous since even a slight show of weakness will allow the demon to break free. Witchcraft is a similar area, though rather than evil demons the spirits a Witch summons to do their bidding are merely mischievous. Then you have Sorcery, also known as the Will and the Word. The only two prohibitions in Sorery are the inability to bring people back fromt he dead (though there were two exceptions in the form of Horse and Durnik), and the absolute prohibition against unmaking any object. And I like te way Eddings explores the idea that if you use Sorcery anyone else with the same abilities can "hear" it.
Oooh! I loved the Belgariad and the Malloreon. There are so many interesting and likeable characters in those series. I was totally bummed out when I finished them and had to move on to something else.
I prefer epics. I love getting totally immersed in a universe and getting to know characters over a series. Although, occasionally, I get a little overwhelmed and feel like there's just too much going on. Wheel of Time and A Song of Ice and Fire are like that for me. I enjoyed them, but they felt bogged down with too much information at times. I have a kind of love/hate thing going with Sword of Truth. Some of that is so good and some of it, not so much. I also really enjoyed Robin Hobb's Farseer trilogy and all of the related trilogies that came after.
I was actually rereading the Belgariad when I got the news of David Eddings' death. He died on I believe June 2, 2009 and I was reading Castle of Wizardry at the time. But because it's one of my favorite series I'm extremely torn on the idea of making movies out of them. They would make great movies if handled by the right director, one who stayed true to the story. But I know Hollywood too well to have much faith that such would be the case. After the way they handled Lord of the Rings and, even worse, what they did to Eragon, I'd be extremely skeptical. Bt I still do find myself imagining who would play what role. I came up with a few ideas, naely Ralph Fiennes as Zakath, someone like Charlie Sheen as Silk and John Malkovich as the Prophecy.
I don't think I'd want to see it as a movie. They'd just get it all wrong and it would be a huge letdown. Movies are always so disappointing, especially when they try to take on epic fantasy.
That's the one reason I might consider becoming a film director, always asuming that a blind person could do the job. I'd be the only director who tried to stay faithful to a book's story without Hollywoodizing any part of it.
I have to say that like other people have mentioned I believe both the series and stand alone novels have their different appeal. I may be inclined to prefer series over standd alone novels only because I love watching characters develop throughout a series in a way that isn't quite possible in a single novel unless you want to have a monstrocity of a novel and even then the development of the characters wouldn't be the same. As a final thought some of my recommendations would be:
R.A Salvatore's-Forgotten Realms stuff mainly the Drizzt books.
Terry Goodkind's-Sword of Truth
Jeniffer Roberson-has some good books as well in the blade dancers series.
Mercedes Lackey-Most of her books are good.
Raymond E Feist-Probably my favorite fantasy author and one that is often overlooked. I've read all 28 or so of his novels. They all take place on the same worldd and follow a singular plot but any of the smaller series with in the main series can be read alone. As an exxample, his Empire series with Janny Wurts is rather good.
David Eddingss
Robert Jorddan
Brandon Sandderson
Wow! I do not know about anyone else, but I am certainly getting a lot of ideas of what I shall read next. I hate running out of ideas of what to read, especially after something I love dearly has ended.
I also hate it when a movie or television series does not keep to the books it is based off of. Sometimes some elements of the show or movie are better. But most of the time I find the movie or show deviates from the story, if not by plot alone, but by character. Take Legend of The Seeker, for example. My entire family has read The Sword of Truth series, and we were disgusted by the way Denna's character was basically massacred. Not to mention the oddities in plot that occurred in the show but not in the books.
That's my biggest complaint with Lord of the Rings. I didn't like what they did to Aragorn or Faramir. And Frodo was portrayed as a complete and utter wuss. Granted he was never a mighty warrior but the way they portrayed him in the movie just didn't entirely fit. It made me think dinnertime for Frodo and Sam must be an absolute chore.
Sam: Mr. Frodo, could you pass me the salt?
Frodo: No, Sam, I can't. It's just...too...heavy!
A few things to say here.
Series vs. standalone novel: I'm gonna go ahead and say that comparing them is a bit like apples and oranges, in a way. The standalone forces you to use a more limited medium to tell your story, which means less overall flesh, which arguably might require more talent. However, a series does allow more back story and character development, that much is pretty evident. We're speaking of preference here, which is totally fine, but let us remember that to compare directly a standalone novel and a series of novels is a great deal llike comparing said standalone novel to a short story.
In the fantasy genre, I have read more from well-known series than I have of the single novels, which means that my experience is kind of biased. However, being a writer myself, I can say one thing for absolute certain: every single fantasy series I have read (Belgariad, Lord of the Rings, Sword of Truth and Wheel of Time to name a few particularly high-profile ones) suffers from a variety of rather annoying faults. Lazy characterization, needless exposition and often banal descriptions of things which should either be self-evident or which have already been done to death. Robert Jordan's description of holding the One Power for both males and females, his seeming fascination with the Aes-Sedai manipulations and high-handed attitude as if we didn't understand it in our bones already, his concept of evil which in most cases seems awfully farfetched (I haven't found a Black Ajah sister yet that I've honestly felt bad for except one in a later book, and she's a special case). Not to mention all the sniffing, hands planted on hips, disparaging of the opposite sex (usually done by women in the Wheel of Time, mind you), use of lazy descriptions (the word "froze" is used so often I have literally shut off Towers of Midnight twice because of it)...the list goes on. These are faults that you can't get away with in a standalone novel, but which epic fantasy writers seem to spout with impunity. As far as Goodkind goes, he had me hooked with the first couple of books even if some of his plot twists seem a touch contrived...I gave him the benefit of the doubt for awhile. But then Richard started getting preachy, people started finding ten ways to explain the same thing, Jagang became well and truly entrenched (and I'm sorry but I just couldn't stomach him after about book 5 or so), and while I really did love book 6 for the most part, I really think Goodkind lost sight of his message. Forgive me for saying this, SoT fans, but I really think after book 6 that Richard and Nicci could well have ended up together; Richard and Cahlan seem far too "love at first sight" for my taste, while Nicci's story in book 6 is perhaps the only bit of really excellent characterization I've seen from Goodkind, even if I think the world in which she grew up, which shaped her, rather silly. Just using both WoT and SoT to illustrate the same point; given a huge scope, fantasy writers appear to get lazy, figuring that people will swallow all the fluff because they want the story, and mostly it's true. I suppose really well-written fantasy series might exist, and if any of you folks know some, please do let me know, because while I was happy to finish SoT and will eagerly await the end of WoT for its overarching story, I could have been much more pleased with both.
I haven't read Sword of Truth or Wheel of Time. FOr some reason they just didn't interest me.
That sounds like me when it comes to Harry Potter. I love the fantasy genre more than any other. But for some reason, I just could not get myself into Harry Potter series the way I did with the others I have read. I actually found that rather strange. Lol
Guess I'm glad to know I'm not the only one. I couldn't get past book 1 of Harry Potter either.
Then again, I was a bit spoiled when it came to these types of things: Growing up we had J. R. R. Tolkien, Lloyd Alexander, and others.
Magic is fine and all that, but it can end up being like religion, meaning, it's just the slapstick response to how things allegedly get solved. Kinda bores me actually. The way Stephen King uses mystic things is a lot more interesting: just one tool in a whole set, and a fallible one at that.
The best wizard book I ever read was the Wizard of Earthse, where all sorts of things happened even in one short book. Now, I've been told if I read at least books 2 and 3 of the Harry Potter series, I will possibly get into it. I admit, it's good writing. It's not sloppy or inconsistent. I also admit though, that with sword and sorcery types of books, I enjoy more sword, less sorcery. But everyone has their thing.
I feel the exact same way about the Lord of the Rings. I know this will sound sacreligious considering the author is the ggreat grand father of the genre, but I really didn't enjoy trying to read his books. I read the Hobbit a few times when I was really young, and I enjoyed it. But every time I tried reading the Fellowship, I kept getting part way through, and then giving up. I usualloy really like that kind of stuff, but something about his style just really bugs me. I keep saying I'm going to give it another try and not rely on the movies, but it hasn't happened yet.
I can understand that despite being a LOTR fan myself. Tolkien's writing style isn't for everybody. And I can also agree about Harry Potter, again despite being a fan. I found myself thinking more than once that those wizards needed to have an experience like what happened in Xanth when Bink released the Demon Xanth. For those who don't know, that resulted in what Xanthians referred to as the Time of No Magic. Because I've definitely seen how magic in the Harry Potter universe is taken for granted, particularly by pureblood families.
It's true. But I actuallly think that makes a lot of sense. It's no different in most other fantasy, and it's no different from the reality of our own world where we do the same with technology. I do like the idea though of such a force suddenly disappearing. That's actually something I'll be doing in the really large series I am working on, if I can get it all figured out. It's not something you see much. I do like magic that has some form of limitation though.
I never could get into LOTR either. I've always felt a little guilty about that. The Hobbit was OK. I wasn't blown away, but I got through it. But LOTR just puts me to sleep. I struggled my way through Fellowship. I finally gave up half way through two Towers. I keep telling myself I need to try again and give it more of a chance, but I just don't see what all the fuss is about.
Agreed. In the Xanth books for instance, the main character of the first two novels was a young man named Bink who, it was discovered, was one of the most subtlely powerful magicians in the realm because he was immune to magical harm. He was so powerful in fact that his magic talent actually had a degree of sentience. Anytime someone attempted to harm Bink magically, there would be a seemingly coincidental occurrence that would always turn out in Bink's favor. Granted he could still come to harm through physical means, and his talent would allow or encourage such an occurrence if the physical harm would be less severe than the magical one. Of course you could easily counteract his talent if you knew what it was, but anytime Bink or anyone else attempted to reveal it, there would again be a seeming coincidence that would distract attention from the issue.
In the second book, Bink was ordered by King Trent to go on a quest to find out where Xanth's magic came from. That quest ultimately resulted in the Time of No Magic, a brief but devvastating period where magic was gone from the world and many of the creatures died or at least sickened as a result. Of course they were restored once magic returned a few hours later, but it made the citizens appreciate their magic, even when it wasn't particularly strong. I also liked the unique way magic was portrayed in Xanth, where everybody could use magic but each person had just one spell tat they could cast. Also, talents never repeated, meaning that if one person had te ability to change his own shape, let's say, that talent would never sow up in exactly the same form.
There is no need to feel guilty for not being able to get into something others fuss over. smile Everyone has their own likes and dislikes, and if something is not for you, it is not for you. But I know what you are talking about, because when I told people I just could not get into Harry Potter, the most common phrase I received in response was, 'ARE YOU NUTS!' Not everyone is going to like the same things or even interpret them in the same ways.
For example, I have heard a common comparison between Harry Potter, Richard from Sword of Truth, and even Rand from Wheel of time. And this particular comparison refers to all of them as a savior. And while they perhaps are in their own rights, I am constantly hearing them compared to Jesus and how He was the world's savior. I do not know much about the Christian religion, but I highly doubt the authors intended to make their series a model of it or for their characters to be interpreted as God in any way, shape, or form. But who knows? I could be wrong. And oddly enough, it is epics like these that seem to bring that perspective to the table, and not so much stand alone novels. But again, I could be wrong. What do you all think?
I often find myself asked by fellow readers whether or not I have noticed the likenesses between Jesus or God and the way the main characters' destinies and actions are laid out by the authors. I ask them to kindly leave me out of that discussion, because I am not an expert, I will not pretend to be, and I simply like enjoying a novel or series for what it is, and not for making it out to be a representation of things like modern politics, religion, etc. When those concepts come up in the stories in some way, that is where I leave them. lol But I am certainly not saying people are not entitled to look at it the way they wish. Everyone's opinions and tastes varry.
The past few years I have been reading more and more series/serieses - I find I can't get enough of the author so I tend to seek out those that put out many book sets instead of just single books.
I, myself, have been writing in series format with most of my work--I have too much to say, too much to build for one single book.
I'm secretly dieing waiting for the last book of Women of the Otherworld series (Kelley Armstrong). I really don't want it to end, but all good things must come to an end, yes?
Although I do still enjoy many stand-alones, I seem to perfer 'Epics'
Seamaiden, I see what you're saying about trying to leave a lot of current-day political or religious analysis out of the discussion of books, though I find it a bit amusing since Goodkind, in particular, is hugely spoken of - and criticized for - due to his rather blatant political platforming in the later novels. I mean, has it ever occurred to you that Bertrand and Hildemara Chanboor, the corrupt officials in Soul of the Fire, have the same initials as Bill and Hilary Clinton? Apparently, Goodkind admits to having done this deliberately. What I'm saying is only that you seem to enjoy a series that's seriously under fire on that sort of level, but I admire you for being able (and willing as well) to ignore that aspect of it. I wish I could, but I'm too damned analytical for my own good.
Now, as to Harry Potter...personally, I read the series for two reasons. First, even though the stories seemed to have a good deal of deus ex machina happening in certain places, not to mention really stereotypical characters (Hermione comes to mind), the story moved quickly and took some interesting twists, and that's usually good enough for me to at least tough it out. The only other thing about Harry Potter which kept me on to the end is, quite simply, my desire to finish what I start. I was not blown away by the series, I do not think the writing was particularly good (I swear to god, if I see the word "zoomed" one more time, I'll just about scream), but the story was at the least engaging, and it never became entirely predictable until the climax of the series, which I found a terrific disappointment. It is, in my opinion, a series that grabbed the greater public's sense of mystery and took advantage of it for all it's worth; there are fairly few children and young adults who wouldn't be charmed by a sort of hidden world within the world, especially when you throw together all the archetypes and borrow creatures and such from all sorts of previous mythologies. I mean seriously...Hogwarts is a great big castle with hidden passageways just bursting with magic, magic itself is highly stylized and fancy-looking in many cases, and good versus evil is, for the most part, extremely well-defined. In other words, Rowling created a fantastic world just different enough to be enchanting but just similar enough to be believable, and she did that part flawlessly. I am, then, not even really a fan of HP, even though I can appreciate Rowling's success; I don't dislike the series, but am not particularly impressed either.
Misaki, I know what you mean about the whole religious aspect... as a matter of fact I think there was an episode of Oprah where J.K Rowling was being interviewed and she flat out said she had no intention of likening Harry to Jesus in any way. But people are going to think what they want, no matter what anyone says.
Hmmm. Shepherdwolf, I thought that inicials thing was just a coincidence. lol Though I don't really catch many interviews where authors talk about the reasons for why they write things the way they do... I only heard that ep of Oprah because my mom was pretty routine about watching it every day. But I have to agree I don't like personally analyzing everything I read to be a representation of our modern world. Every story is going to have its own politics, and if it's been inspired by whatever is going on today, so be it. But I, too, like to enjoy stories for what they are. It's hard sometimes, because I have a tendancy to analyze and compare things that has only gotten stronger with my time in college. But I force myself to forget the world around me for a while and just take the worlds in stories for what they are. But sometimes you just can't help but wonder if the authors were trying to imply something. lol
It's really interesting to read all of your opinions on this... I've been working on a series myself now for nearly five years, and spent about eight on the series I wrote before this one. And as someone mentioned, you can't possibly build up your world or characters in one novel the way you can over several. Though I definitely agree that some of the crap in, say, wheel of time, is definitely not necessary and made me want to tear out my hair. lol And of all the people who help me out by giving me feedback on my writing... well, I have asked them expressly to knock me over the head with something if I ever stray in to those waters. hahaha
Misaki, I know what you mean about the whole religious aspect... as a matter of fact I think there was an episode of Oprah where J.K Rowling was being interviewed and she flat out said she had no intention of likening Harry to Jesus in any way. But people are going to think what they want, no matter what anyone says. I actually did love the series, and for many of the same reasons Shepherdwolf mentioned.
Hmmm. Shepherdwolf, I thought that inicials thing was just a coincidence. lol Though I don't really catch many interviews where authors talk about the reasons for why they write things the way they do... I only heard that ep of Oprah because my mom was pretty routine about watching it every day. But I have to agree I don't like personally analyzing everything I read to be a representation of our modern world. Every story is going to have its own politics, and if it's been inspired by whatever is going on today, so be it. But I, too, like to enjoy stories for what they are. It's hard sometimes, because I have a tendancy to analyze and compare things that has only gotten stronger with my time in college. But I force myself to forget the world around me for a while and just take the worlds in stories for what they are. But sometimes you just can't help but wonder if the authors were trying to imply something. lol
It's really interesting to read all of your opinions on this... I've been working on a series myself now for nearly five years, and spent about eight on the series I wrote before this one. And as someone mentioned, you can't possibly build up your world or characters in one novel the way you can over several. Though I definitely agree that some of the crap in, say, wheel of time, is definitely not necessary and made me want to tear out my hair. lol And of all the people who help me out by giving me feedback on my writing... well, I have asked them expressly to knock me over the head with something if I ever stray in to those waters. hahaha
Whoa! Sorry if you guys all saw my post twice... the site went nuts on me. SO thought I'd appologize ahead of time. lol
I am an HP fan, but I can definitely agree the end was fairly anticlimactic. As for people comparing Harry to Jesus I find that rather ironic considering all those who criticize the books for being Satanic.
I know, right? Because after all, magic is soooo evil! And Rowling's particular interpretation of it and the way she portrayed voldemort and Harry is right out of hell... get out of my face with that crap...lol
*Sarcasm font* Yeah. My poor Christian morals got a real shaking after reading The Harry Potter series. I especially found good winning out over evil extremely disturbing. And don't even get me started about Voldomort's big snake! It actually made me want to stburning crosses and sacrificing puppies. *End sarcasm*
ShepherdWolf Is right about Terry Goodkind's use of the initials. I actually forgot about that, but I remember reading that on a Q&A session he had on his website.
See, it's funny. I thought I'd heard Rowling at one point say that there was distinct Christian symbolism in Harry Potter. I don't know that she ever said she was likening him to Jesus, and I don't think there's too much comparison in any case (I'm not a biblical scholar, so perhaps there are a lot of links that I wouldn't catch), but even my admittedly non-Christian mind can see bits and pieces that make sense. It's more in terms of the overarching good vs. evil, the snake symbolism and Dumbledore, plus the interlude in the train station of the mind, for want of a better way of putting it. I see glimpses of a lot of ideals embodied in particular by Christianity, though I'm sure other religions also embody some of these concepts as well.
They do. At their hearts, many religions have overarching similarities. I think it all derives from the same origin, but that's a discussion for another time and another forum. I think if you look carefully you can find such allusions in many good versus evil plots. Take star wars for instance. It embodies many of the stariotypes off the good versus evil plot. yet it does so in a way that transcended generations. In the end I think many writers inspirations come from similar origins. it's how we exicute those ideas that matters most. Good is almost always going to win, the good main character rarely dies. Those conclusions are often foregone. It's the journey - the trials good faces, the sacrifices made, the adventure of the conclusion that holds our interest.
There's definitely Christian symbolism in Lord of the Rings and even more so in the Chronicles of Narnia.
Sorry to bring such an old topic back to the top, but my attention was grabged by the Harry Potter versus Jesus idea:
-Jesus is the "chosen one", the one to save men from sin. Harry Potter is the "chosen one" meant to save all people from the Dark Lord, who is basically evil incarnate.
-Jesus, despite being an ordinary human being, was seemingly capable of miracles and power, which did not come from himself. Harry Potter, while not extraordinarily good at anything really, seems to get himself out of all kinds of tight spots, and has protection and power from his mother's blood and her love for him.
-Jesus was at once adored and ridiculed. Harry Potter went from being special, to infamous, to famous again, to infamous...and people thought he was making the whole dark-lord-coming-back thing up for awhile. A false prophet, if you will.
-Jesus' death was a sacrifice; so was Harry's. Oh yeah, and they both came back from the dead.
-Harry and Jesus both used love to overcome evil.
Glaring Christian symbolism, anyone?
Yup, not that the fundies will see it. LOL.