King's influences for the DT series *spoilers*

[nomis93]

hi guys.I am trying too decide if I should start reading the dark tower series or the LOTR trilogy.I read about both series and am having trouble.So i thought I should ask the fans. oh and please no spoilers.Right now I am busy reading the ruins by scott smith the same guy who wrote A simple plan,which was called the best suspense novel of the 1990s by stephen king himself.So it will be a while before I start reading one of the book series i mentioned above. But I still wanna hear your opinions.

[ManOfWesternesse]

Welcome to the place nomis.

Of course, there's only one answer to your question, and that is that you absolutely need to read both!

Now, as to which to read first? Hard to answer that one. I'd personally say read LotR first, then DT after. But I do know some people have ... problems... reading LotR, and I wouldn't want you put-off trying DT if LotR didn't work out for you.

Are you a Fantasy fan generally? What Fantasy have you read, and what have you really liked? (This might influence the answer).

[Jean]

But I do know some people have ... problems... reading LotR

not only people, Brian

nomis93: do you want a poll here?

[ManOfWesternesse]

...not only people, Brian...

Ah, but descendants of Beorn should surely have no problems with it....?

[mia/susannah]

Welcome nomis93. I have not read the LOTR trilogy. I have watched all the movies and really enjoyed those. I have read the Dark Tower Series and must admit I am more of a fan of the Dark Tower. Personally, I would recommend the Dark Tower series first.

[Brice]

Yeah, I liked LotR alot and all, but I'd have to say DT.

[jayson]

I agree with Brian [big surprise there ] to try LotR first. If it's not to your liking you can always put it down and pick up DT. As to the question of how they compare, other than the fact that they are both multi-book epics about quests, they really don't compare all that much. They are pretty distinct from one another in terms of style and subject matter. Each is a great series in its own right.

[LadyHitchhiker]

Dark Tower > Lotr

[jayson]

Dark Tower > Lotr

In terms of there being a greater number of books in DT. Otherwise, I think there is a LOT of room to debate that one.

[ManOfWesternesse]

Dark Tower > Lotr

- goddamed mathamatical symbology!@#~*&%!

[sarah]

Well, I have to say The Dark Tower first all the way. You must read both of course, but my vote is start with Roland and move onto Frodo.

[John_and_Yoko]

I personally would read The Lord of the Rings first. The Dark Tower makes reference (in different ways) to a LOT of previous literature, including The Lord of the Rings. It would be easier to get the references if you've read the latter before you start the seven-volume epic.

However, having said that, different people are different, and that's only what I personally would do (and what I personally did do).

[Ves'Ka Gan]

I don't believe the two are comparable in any other way than being epic-length tales about a quest.

I really never fell in love with LOTR. I tried to get into it several times and failed, hobbits just weren't my bag. I did enjoy the films, but it still didn't move me or amaze me.

I would say read both & read whichever first. I did just fine reading the Dark Tower without having knowledge of all the LOTR references.

[John_and_Yoko]

I beg to differ--they're both mythological in ways, but they take different approaches to mythology. The Lord of the Rings is based on language and the past, while The Dark Tower is based on the present and the facts we now know about what the world is like.

[Letti]

I think you can choose either. You can only win.

[cozener]

Read LotR first. It was LotR that inspired King to write DT in the first place. I read DT knowing this and I think it added to my enjoyment to a certain extent.

But you y'know, you don't really have to read LotR. You can just rent the movies and be done in a fraction of the time then go read DT

[John_and_Yoko]

Read LotR first. It was LotR that inspired King to write DT in the first place. I read DT knowing this and I think it added to my enjoyment to a certain extent.

But you y'know, you don't really have to read LotR. You can just rent the movies and be done in a fraction of the time then go read DT

Movies =/= books.

They made a number of changes to the movies....

[jayson]

Watching the LotR movies instead of reading the books is a MAJOR disservice to the story. HUGE parts of the story were left out and/or changed drastically in the movies. The movies may be enjoyable but they are NOT by any means an adequate substitute for these books.

[John_and_Yoko]

Watching the LotR movies instead of reading the books is a MAJOR disservice to the story. HUGE parts of the story were left out and/or changed drastically in the movies. The movies may be enjoyable but they are NOT by any means an adequate substitute for these books.

The same could really be said for most movie adaptations of books. I agree with R_of_G.

[jayson]

Watching the LotR movies instead of reading the books is a MAJOR disservice to the story. HUGE parts of the story were left out and/or changed drastically in the movies. The movies may be enjoyable but they are NOT by any means an adequate substitute for these books.

The same could really be said for most movie adaptations of books. I agree with R_of_G.

That's the main reason I am against DT movies being made. I always felt that way but the LotR movies sealed the deal.

[Matt]

I would say read DT first but not because I consider one better than the other, I would just consider DT an "easier" read.

[Odetta]

No one has said this yet so I will....

DT is more odd or bizarre than LOTR... tho once you've read about 2 of them they don't seem so bizarre anymore. Maybe that can help you choose.

[cozener]

Y'know I put that little smiley on the end of that statement to indicate that I was joking.

But hey, lets open the ball on this topic...

Of course they made changes...its a movie that can't be 20 hours long. But while I agree that it would be a disservice to the story (but more to Tolkien himself) to watch the movies and not read the books, I don't consider it a major disservice. The basic story is still there. Also, "major" and "huge" are very subjective terms. The only HUGE change, to me, was the elimination of "The Scouring of the Shire". This necessitated a couple of other changes of course. There were some changes that I would consider annoying and unnecessary (Frodo's dismissal of Sam comes to mind) but not "major". Some of the changes I actually consider improvements...namely the inflation of Arwen's role. I think it made both Aragorn and Arwen more interesting. Her getting Glorfindel's role in the first flick, I thought was a masterstroke. Sorry, but Glorfindel, elven baddass that he may be, just isn't important to this particular story.

Besides, if someone who watches the movie really enjoys them they can go read the books and find out for themselves.

But I am a pretty die hard Tolkien fan. I'd love to see that 20 hour flick. I just don't trust that everyone else does and I like the idea of the movie being an audience pleaser to get more folks into reading the book. Its like watching movies like Gladiator and 300. Historically, they are, to a large extent, bunk. But if they get people excited about reading up about gladiators, Ancient Greek city-states, and the Roman Empire...I'm thrilled. Besides, like LotR...they were kickass movies

DT is more odd or bizarre than LOTR...

Y'know...I'm sure that I can agree with that. But balrogs, Istari, and Gollum are pretty damn bizarre.

[jayson]

I know you were kidding, at least partially but I do think there were some other drastic changes besides the elimination of the Scouring of the Shire. The most glaring to me is what happened at Mt. Doom. In the book Frodo does not catch and then drop Gollum. Gollum is carried over the edge by his own celebration and Frodo NEVER plays a part in that. Pippin doesn't light the beacons at Minas Tirith, in fact they're already lit when Gandalf is bringing Pippin to Minas Tirith. Merry didn't go to the battle at the gates of Mordor [in fact I think the missing Houses of Healing section is almost as bad an omission as the Scouring of the Shire section]. The entire role of Denethor is different in the films than in the books. There is much much more, especially as I've pointed out before the inclusion of new material by Jackson at the expense of Tolkien material [like that bullshit scene with the Wargs and Aragorn going over the cliff which never happened in the books]. Some of these things may seem like not a big deal but imagine how most of us would feel if a director changed elements of DT to make characters do things they never did in the books. I know I'd be pissed off.

[nomis93]

thanks for the responses guys. I am new too fantasy fiction so i wanna start with a good fantasy novel.