/lit/ - Literature

this is a good novel

superior to Lord of the Rings

Comparisons with a contemporary, J.R.R. Tolkien, are perhaps inevitable (both works were published between 1954-55). But whereas Tolkien drew upon the Eddic sagas to create a world whose purpose was largely consolatory and supportive of Tolkien's own Christian values, Anderson abandoned himself to the original moral tenor of the Norse sagas, and a magical realm in which both men and faerie often find themselves at the mercy of capricious forces whose aims and motives are far from being clear. And while both works can in part be viewed as a reaction to the horrors of modern warfare, Tolkien holds out an offer of hope, however melancholic, whereas Anderson's vision retains the spirit of Ragnarok. And, not only in spirit, but also in compositional structure, Anderson adheres far more closely to the rhythms and traditions of his Eddic sources. The end result can be viewed as an antithesis to Tolkien's, or at

what does /lit/ think?

bump

The Broken Sword

the other day someone claimed that not only weren't The Broken Sword & Three Heats and Three Lions better than LotR but that Poul Anderson as a whole was a terrible writer
how on earth could someone believe such nonsense?

>>682130
such as?
I don't know you can say Broken Sword & Three Hearts and Three Lions are no better than LotR, are you demented?