Knock yourselves the fuck out.

To what purpose? Thats like comparing cats, dogs and rabbits.

Low fantasy, mid fantasy, and high fantasy.
(often) lone adventurer, adventuring party/army, a whole university.

Books? Movies? The old Conan & the Cimmerians musical kids' cartoon from the mid-80s?

Instead of fighting, they team up. Tolkien is the Sage/Bard, Conan gets jiggy with Hermoine and Galadriel, and Red Sonja takes Harry as a mage-slave concubine.

Conan would kick both of their asses.

Tolkien wins because his two opponents are fictional characters.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;983528Conan would kick both of their asses.

Heh heh...presumably he meant Howard v. Tolkien v. Rowling or Conan v. Gandalf v. Potter, but I'm not a mind reader.

Personally I haven't read any Harry Potter books or seen the movies so I can't answer about that part of the equation if I'm honest, but I'll be dishonest and say Howard > Tolkien > Rowling. But Homer > all of them combined. I still like Dumas best.

Quote from: Dumarest;983540I still like Dumas best.

Remember I Loved reading Dumas books in the juniors.

Harry Potter is an ok series but way better kids books out there.  Very typical of the dumbing down kids/YA books seem to have had in the last 20-30 years.

Of the two adult writers Tolkien is clearly the technically better but Howard's  books are the easier read and in my opinion sometimes the more enjoyable for it.

If I had to pick a favourite...Howard's Conan by a small but healthy Margin over LotR but on any day both over the silliness that is Harry Potter.

Not sure I'd say Tolkien is clearly a better writer technically. He is much better at sustaining a novel length story as Howard's Hour of the Dragon is far too episodic with none of the skill of Leiber's similarly episodic Swords of Lankmar. But Tolkien has many longeurs in LoTR and his prose is sturdy but pedestrian.

So Tolkien is far less uneven than Howard but Howard's writing at its best is far more vivid and full of energy than anything Tolkein produced. Neither are masters of characterization, except for Bilbo and Gollum I find Tolkien's books full of stuffed shirts. I find Tolkien's attempts at humour too twee and Howard is largely a humourless writer. So as usual with aesthetic questions is comes down to what techical aspects you value over others.

Quote from: Voros;983598Not sure I'd say Tolkien is clearly a better writer technically. He is much better at sustaining a novel length story as Howard's Hour of the Dragon is far too episodic with none of the skill of Leiber's similarly episodic Swords of Lankmar. But Tolkien has many longeurs in LoTR and his prose is sturdy but pedestrian.

So Tolkien is far less uneven than Howard but Howard's writing at its best is far more vivid and full of energy than anything Tolkein produced. Neither are masters of characterization, except for Bilbo and Gollum I find Tolkien's books full of stuffed shirts. I find Tolkien's attempts at humour too twee and Howard is largely a humourless writer. So as usual with aesthetic questions is comes down to what techical aspects you value over others.

Sorry I'm thinking technical in the very literal sense. From a reading, more engaging sense of prose then Howard has my vote. Hardly surprising given that Tolkien was a literature professor first, writer second and technical knowledge doesn't necessarily equate to good storytelling, not that I'm knocking his works but he clearly had an eye towards creating rather than writing (if that makes sense).

I'm rereading Howard at the moment (was meant to be Conan, started with Kull :rolleyes:) and I agree on the characterisation to a point. Kull is easy to write off as Conan in another coat but there are subtle differences. However his secondary characters are clearly paper cut outs for the most part. Still you've got to enjoy the stories

Put it this way, re: Tolkien v. Howard: I can read through Howard without ever needing a break due to his writing style, whereas with Tolkien I tend to drift away when I hit his Sargasso Seas and have to come back to it later. There are some really tedious parts in every Tolkien book I've read.

I'm guilty of prejudice as I have not read Harry Potter, but I judged the books by their covers and they looked dumb to me, and everyone who has ever described them to me just made me feel I was right. Hogwarts, muggles, quidditch, etc. No thanks. Maybe they are wonderful but I read the first couple of pages of the first book (my wife has them all) and couldn't get interested. Same with the movies; I saw about 30 minutes of the first one and found it totally uninvolving and cliched.

Quote from: HorusArisen;983637Sorry I'm thinking technical in the very literal sense. From a reading, more engaging sense of prose then Howard has my vote. Hardly surprising given that Tolkien was a literature professor first, writer second and technical knowledge doesn't necessarily equate to good storytelling, not that I'm knocking his works but he clearly had an eye towards creating rather than writing (if that makes sense).

I'm rereading Howard at the moment (was meant to be Conan, started with Kull :rolleyes:) and I agree on the characterisation to a point. Kull is easy to write off as Conan in another coat but there are subtle differences. However his secondary characters are clearly paper cut outs for the most part. Still you've got to enjoy the stories

One thing with Howard is that most of his best work was published, some of his greatness is diluted by the publishing of his lesser work that he may have never intended to see the light of day. Not to mention all the pastiches of sketches and notes by the Conan knock-off artists.
 
The funny thing about Howard is how memorable his heroines are. Queen of the Black Coast and Red Nails are among his best stories for this reason. When I came to read Howard I was surprised to find his stories less sexist than Roy Thomas' Savage Sword of Conan scripts! But if you watch the film about Howard Whole Wide World I think you see why. His strong women are probably based on Novalyne Price.

Quote from: Voros;984033One thing with Howard is that most of his best work was published, some of his greatness is diluted by the publishing of his lesser work that he may have never intended to see the light of day. Not to mention all the pastiches of sketches and notes by the Conan knock-off artists.
 
The funny thing about Howard is how memorable his heroines are. Queen of the Black Coast and Red Nails are among his best stories for this reason. When I came to read Howard I was surprised to find his stories less sexist than Roy Thomas' Savage Sword of Conan scripts! But if you watch the film about Howard Whole Wide World I think you see why. His strong women are probably based on Novalyne Price.

Got to say I'm enjoying reading them at the moment. Meant to start with Conan but decided to go with Kull who I'd avoided as I admittedly thought he'd just be a rinse and repeat character.  Can't fault them as gems of the genre and I agree with I think everything you've said.

Quote from: Dumarest;984012Put it this way, re: Tolkien v. Howard: I can read through Howard without ever needing a break due to his writing style, whereas with Tolkien I tend to drift away when I hit his Sargasso Seas and have to come back to it later. There are some really tedious parts in every Tolkien book I've read.

I'm guilty of prejudice as I have not read Harry Potter, but I judged the books by their covers and they looked dumb to me, and everyone who has ever described them to me just made me feel I was right. Hogwarts, muggles, quidditch, etc. No thanks. Maybe they are wonderful but I read the first couple of pages of the first book (my wife has them all) and couldn't get interested. Same with the movies; I saw about 30 minutes of the first one and found it totally uninvolving and cliched.

Honestly I'm nuts about fantasy and I cannot fathom why these are popular. They treat kids like idiots.

I like Tolkien.  But Howard is my jam.  I'm a Conan fan through and through.  I think Howard is a much better writer than he's often given credit for...and I think Conan is far more nuanced than just being a hack 'n slash lunkhead. The Conan stories suffer a bit from being written for publication in pulp serials (the sorts of things that get repeated again and again like describing Conan's mighty thews and cat-like reflexes so new readers are kept up to date and what not) but they are fantastic adventure stories and his world is remarkably alive.  Plus, the dungeon in The Scarlet Citadel is my favorite "D&D style" funhouse dungeon in literature.  

Harry Potter?  Well I haven't read the books but I've seen several of the movies and it's terrible stuff.  I know they are intended as kids stories and as that I guess they are ok but for an older reader and compared to LOTR or Conan, well there's no comparison imho.  One big problem I have with the potter stuff is how there is a super-specific magic spell to be used against every challenge.  I mean the magical incantations might as well be stuff like "blasticus monster in act five-icus"...