Now before I start, let me make one thing quite clear:

I purposely put this topic here, because it is a general discussion on these AUTHORS and not on the books themselves, so logically this doesn't fit into the category of BOOKS, but would fit into the category of AUTHORS. But since there is none this is the best place for it.

What this topic is generally about is to have a nice discussion on which of the three specified authors are the best:

JRR Tolkien
Christopher Paolini or
JK Rowling

This is how this will work. If you want to say what you think the best author of those three is, you must back it up as to why. It's pretty much a few intelligent paragraphics on which you think is the best.

Please respect other people's opinions. Please don't do this:

Example of a post by A: I think Paolini is the best because his story is faced paced and exciting!

Example of a past by B: What! You think paolini is the best? I can't believe you, you must have serious problems.

I would really like this topic to be a nice place to express your opinions. So, in other words this is not a debate topic, its merely to say which isthe best of the three authors and why

Anyway, I'll start:
--------------------------

I think the best of the three authors is definitely Tolkien. Not just because he set the main boundaries for fantasy literature, but also because he has had years of experience in the english language before he started The Hobbit and LotR. Also, he set aside large amounts of his life to create a whole legend - that being Middle-Earth. He created a huge complex history of the ages and the events that took place there. So, I base my opinion of him being the best because of his previous experience.

And now for your opinions...

I would have to say Paolini. Tolkien was a great author too, but it dragged on alot more. By that I mean that some of the books were very very boring..

Anyways. back on to my decision..

To me, Paolini was a better writer because he was much younger then most other authors when he wrote a BEST SELLING BOOK. It simply amazes me how a kid that young could write something so grand...

i like paloini the best, and like Fronzz said, he is really young and hes already written a best selling book, so he has a great career ahead of him.
Tolkiens good to, his books do get kind of boring but were still great.

Tolkien is arguably one of the best writers of all time. His books contain so many levels of meaning that there are college courses on them. They contain complicated allegories on world events and have lasted decades. No one other than a truly great writer can accomplish this.

THIS IS MY 4000th post!!! YAY ME!!!

I have to Christopher Paolini. Granted, I do hold an admiration for Tolkein and he is a more talented and intelligent author than Paolini. But when it comes to interest, development, and sheer plot strength, Paolini has to take the gold. His stories are more engaging to young and adult readers, whereas Tolkein's stories really lean towards more of an adult audience. Paolini is fast-paced; Tolkein really isn't, with the exception of The Hobbit. Paolini developes his characters better, almost to the point where we can connect with the main ones like Eragon and Saphira and Brom. Paolini makes the reader feel happiness and sorrow and all sorts of other emotions when something happens to one of the characters; Tolkein's characters seem kinda distant. I can tell you one thing, if you can make a reader feel emotion to a fictitious character like Paolini can, that is the mark of a true master. That's why Paolini is better than Tolkein.

i agree, imc, that tolkien is a legendary author and shoukd not be doubted. but i also agree more with you i-l-s,m and thats one of the things i like about him that he makes emotion in his characters, another author i like, Karen Travis is like that too and she is my second favorite author.

Great opinions, guys!

I must say, your opinions here greatly differ from those on Inheritance Forums who thought Paolini was a person who stole Tolkien's ideas.

shouldnt you have made this a poll?

Not a bad argument and I do have to agree with you. Tolkein's books are bestsellers, some of the greatest works of fiction ever made. But honestly, I couldn't connect with his characters as well as I could with Paolini's. His characters seemed purely that: fictional. Not enough feeling or development was put into them. Paolini took the time in Eragon and Eldest to develop the characters, so I can relate to them. I'll release something to the public, I love Saphira not just because my mental image of her is gorgeous, but because she seems like the perfect model for the perfect human. If I could have my way, I would make sure everyone was like Saphira because she is the type of person we all should strive to become.

I have not read any of the Tolken books but now I think I'm going to have to... But between Rowling and Paloni
I would say Rowling thumbs down, as of today. But there is and age diffrence and their maturity of writing is diffrent. I think that Paloni COULD develope into a great author, but he jsut isnt up to the standards of Rowling yet. You can feel them amiturity in his books. Sure they are GREAT books and i love them, but there are whole chapters that seem to be there, only to make the book longer. There are long periods that seem meaningless. Rowling doesnt have a bunch of inbetween stuff. Almost every aspect of her books has some relation to another book, is foreshaddowing, explaining past or future events, or developing the story in general. She doesnt have large expanses of time that are boring or meaningless. I think the only time in her books i felt she was wasting time was in the Seventh when they are at Grimauld Place, but even them she interdisperses it with Harry's visions and Kreatcher's tale.
Paloni is still young and aspiring. Not to say one day he wont match Rowling, but it is deffinatlly not today.

I'll add another aspect to my opinion to why Tolkien is better than paolini:

I think it is also, that LotR was actually meant for an adult audience, where as paolini aims at teenagers and younger children. Also, Tolkien's thing really isn't a "usual tale from the depths" but instead is a whole history of a mythical world and the history of the major events of the time.

Hmmm...I've been delving into Tolkien history lately, and I am pretty sure it was The Hobbit that was intended for children and wasn't intended to be published until an editor picked it up and recommended it to Allen & Unwin./ it was such a success that they demanded more 'hobbits" and tolkien relectantly set aside the history of middle-earth and beagun LotR which was intended for adults, and Unwin weren't that happy about that, but they published the trilogy nevertheless.

and you really thought that we'd pull the same thing anti-shurtugal did? We aren't traitors. besides, Tolkien is the father of High Fantasy, so anything in that subgenre can be considered taking from him. God. It's not a crime.

The two Towers actually refers to orthanc and Minis Morgul.

no, I read most often that The Two Towers meant Orthanc and Barad Dur.

Where did you read that?

doh, I can't remember which articles I heard that from. It was a long time ago. But I almost constantly hear that the "Two Towers" are Orthanc and Barad Dur to represent the alliance between Saruman and Sauron.

Here's proof that the lord of the rings wasn't written for his children, but the hobbit was:

quoted from http://www.tolkien.co.uk/biography_jrrt.aspx

hahah is this a serious topic??? rowling for sure

you HAVE to be joking. HP is not in the least bit better than LOTR.

I know. I just decided to put that there so we all know the truth.

Valkrayie, a Classic can not be compared to either Eragon or HP. LOTR is in another league. Tolkien is the FATHER of High Fantacy. Eragon and HP merely fall into that category, so Tolkien being the father of the genre, he already wins.

makes sense, i can see minas morgul, or even minas tirith, if you want to get technical, as they all have towers, but bara dur and orthanc do make the most sense.

How cruel of a topic is this!! Make me choose between three of the best fantasy authors of all time!! harsh! unfair! i dislike this topic.

IDK which i like more. Harry potter and eragon are both great books, but lack the style and quality of writing tolkien had. his books are just a bit too long to enjoy totally and read many times. takes too long, and is hard to understand at times, etc. but his writing is amazing. He is probably the best fantasy writer of all time, easy.

Oh, I forgot to add Ursula Le Guin - The author of The Earthsea Trilogy. Earthsea trilogy is definitely nearly as good as LotR. Now, whats everyone's opinions on Le Guin?

i've only read the first earthsea book, none of the sequels or prequels, but it was also pretty good, also older, higher quality writing, but not as long or famous as LOTR.

No, the books aren't that long. In fact I have all four books - the Earthsea Quartet in one volume. It equals 691 pages in total of the four books.

Just from the style of writing, you can TELL that that author was practically a DISCIPLE of Tolkien

By the way, I just found the proof again that I'd seen before that LotR The Two Towers related to Orthanc and Minis Morgul:

The following is quoted from a side note at the end of The Fellowship of the Ring:



Anyway, Le Guin is one of the High Fantasy Writers up there on the thrones with CS Lewis, Tolkien, and Rowling.

NO WAY!!! NO WAY IS ROWLING UP THERE WITH TOLKIEN AND LOUIS!!! THEY WERE THE FATHERS OF HIGH FANTACY!!! ROWLING IS A POSER!!! LE GUIN, UNLIKE ROWLING, WROTE A CLASSIC!!! HP WILL NEVER BE A CLASSIC!!! ROWLING DOESN'T DESERVE TO BE IN THE SAME BREATH AS TOLKIEN AND LOUIS!!!

True. Forget Rowling. Her books will never be classics. For starters they're not set in a beautiful land - merely a play off of Britain. Secondly its not as beautifully woven like Middle-Earth and Earthsea are.

But why won't HP ever be a classic? Although I definitely hope that Inheritance never does become one because that would completely rip off tolkien and Le Guin and Lewis.

We are talking about High Fantacy classics. HP is TECHNICALLY High Fantacy. lol. leave it up to Firetongue to pick the English authors. Yeah, they are classics, but I'm just talking about High Fantacy.

well, a lot of english authors DID write classics!! the quality of books longer ago was a LOT better. and the print was smaller, so the story's were longer. HP's DEFINETLY not a classic, and won't be, unless writing quality degenerates SO far that its considered VERY high quality writing. if it does get that bad, then i'll be hating life. it'd be kind of funny though, seeing middle schoolers struggling with "See the dog run. He runs fast. He chases a stick" because no one can read well anymore.

I'd have to say Rowling or Poalini. I have only read the Hobbit and part of the fellowship.

yeah, i'm not much for really old books. i actually don't care that writing has gotten a little simpler, because you get good stories but dont' have to read complicated writing or think a ton!

Dickens and Doyle have both written books that I'd say are still good. Dickens wrote A Christmas Carol. That has got to be one of the most recognized plays in the world! And Sherlock Holmes is still a great series. I will say that Great Expectations is one of the most boring books I've ever read though. I agree, there are some very interesting books now, but the fact is that all of the classics can't be touched by them: Beowulf, Shakespeare (if you count plays), Holmes, The Illiad. I could go on.

I'd have to say Rowling, others are good but she's the best.

Frankly, by a small fingertip, I have to say Rowling.
Her books kept me interested and the second I read chapter one of Philsophers Stone in 2001, when I was 5(!) I knew that she was good. She does not have anything there that doesn't need to be, she doesn't have anything to speed time ahead in her books, she doesn't have anything that makes you lose interest. All of her chapters either give detail of past and future, gints to future plots, or important things that the reader should know to continue the book.
Tolkien was great, and his nooks will be read, reread, and read again, but I think they are slightly not what todays reader would interest. Hey, I do enjoy his books, but I think that the HP series are more modern and the reader can understand what is happening today; but if Tolkien's books were nearer now and our age, it would be a tie.
Paolini is very talented, all in all, and the fact he began a work of genius when he was fifteen, is, I must admit, quite incredible. But there are unneeded words, chapters, and characters that are slotted in their to make the book longer. And his ideas are quite predictable - when I saw Murtagh come along, I knew he was only there for a reason, and then I solved the puzzle midway through Eldest, that son of Morzan, would be Eragon's brother. And Paolini, if you check, only did one month of planning, where it took Tolkien at least 10 years, because his books are more active, and Rowling five.
And I found Le Guin's books very low paced, and did not finish it, because the chapters dawned, so much happened in the first thirt pages, and her character was not very detailed; I thought Ogion gave him everything to do, I thought Ogion told him what to do, an Sparrowhawk had no control.
So, my list is Rowling, Tolkien and Paolini, but they are all great authors, and have written many great books for eager readers to enjoy. But Le Guin, I didn't find her first book interesting.

I have to say Tolkien. He was a great writer far above Rowling's or Paolini's leval. I have to admit that his books are much harder to read but the plot and characters in the books are far better. His stuff may be old fasion but that is half of the fun of reading his books y'all.

Most importantly he ressurected fantasy. Who can do it now? ^^
I don't like J.K. Rowling and being hated for it but who cares... No, not really but since i finished reading 4th book i get feeling it's all just same.

Paolini came with interesting idea in time i had nothing to read and this was quiet fun but books that have nothing to tell you, except their own story (meaning books without hidden message) will never defeat Lotr trilogy in Best book contest .

I don't get it! How can all of you say LotR is a difficult book to read? I finished all 6 books when I was 12 and i'm currently surfing the net for The Hobbit the The Silmarillion. The former for my younger bro and the latter for me =P

Like Incomer I don't really like JKR's books. I grew rather bored of it after the fifth book.

I don't know but for most people they are hard books. I read the Fellowship when I was 10.

But yes I could never get into J.K. Rowling's books. They were.....mediocre in my opinoin. Nothing spiecal.

I totally agree. they went downhill since the 4th one. None of them were really good. they are HIGHLY overrated. I mean, they are probably the most overrated books EVER.

I really like all of them.

Tolkein was brilliant because he was sort of the first to come up with this modern fantasy. But his books drag on a bit more than what they should.

Paolini, though he stole other people's stuff, is amazing for his brilliant writing and his stories. I love most books about dragons, but these are by far some of the best fantasy books ever written, way better than The Lord of the Rings.

Rowling, though, is probably my favorite. Her books take on a whole new meaning of fantasy and her characters are so real and you can easily fall in love with all of them, because they are all so realistic, each one having their strengths and their weaknesses. She brought to life an entire new realm of fantasy literature.

OKay I have a few questions for you. Question number one, How is Paolini and Rowlings books better then Tolkeins?
Question number two, how can you say the Eargon and Eldist are written better then Lord of the Rings? (i know this is an sight about them but still come on!)
Question three, and did you accualy read all of Tolkein's books? I have to ask cause yeah I just have to ask.

Lord of the Rings is original and completely revolutionized the fantasy genre. Inheritance Trilogy stole the star Wars Plot nearly completely, and the elves and dwarves of Inheritance seemed to have accidentally stepped out of middle-earth and into Alagaesia. Pah, so far inheritance has just ripped off more professional series, completely stealing their ideas. the dwarves and elves are a good example.

So to sum it up, Paolini strives to be another Tolkien by taking his ideas and claming them for his own, which he will never achieve. So, really, Inheritance is the star wars plot in middle-earth.

I couldn't of said it better myself Sauron. Tolkein is by far the best Auther of the three. And his books always keep you interested, everything matters in them they don't drag on.

Yeah, I would rank them like this:
Tolkien, Rowling, Paolini
Because Tolkien and Rowling have written several amazing books while Paolini is just starting out. And Tolkien argueably created modern fanasty(along with CS Lewis and others)
And Eragon deserves some good movies to increase its popularity like the others...

Okay, here are some answers to previous questions:

1. Paolini and Rowling's books are better than Tolkeins because... Well, I don't know. I guess because I find them more exciting and suspenseful than The Lord of the Rings. The Lord of the Rings weren't really boring, but they seemed to drag on like all the traveling and such. I'm glad the movies were able to sort of cut away some boring scenes and make other scenes more exciting.

2. The Lord of the Rings had nice, flowing, and poetic writing, a thing I enjoy. When I said that Paolini's books were better than The Lord of the Rings, I meant that, to me, they had a more interesting and suspenseful plot. The Lord of the Rings were sort of to the point and didn't leave you wondering with mysteries.

3. I have read all of The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit, and I plan on reading The Silmarillion sometime soon. If I hadn't read the books, I wouldn't have posted my opinion. Surely you could have figured that out!

Okay thats understandible, everyone is intitled to their own point of view and I was just wanted you to expand a little more. And as for me asking if you read the books, well I have known people who try talking about stuff they no nothing of so I had to ask.

As far as fantasy authors I would say this:
1. H.P Lovecraft - bet you never heard of him! F'taghn!
2. Tolkein
3. George MacDonald
4. Lucas (for inventing the genre of science fantasy)
5. Paolini

I hate the plotline of Paolini's books He pretty much stole it from Lucas, as for the setting, Dwarves I don't mind, elves are highly irritating. Puh-lease! Oh *beep* not another elf!

However, the style of writing is a cut above other fantasy, and the sub-plots are done magnificently.

To me, fantasy began with Carrol and Macdonald, really blossoming after WWI with Lovecraft and Tolkein.

How can you compare them with Tolkien, if you have never read his books?

Good point. I've read LoTR and The Hobbit as well as seen the movies, and while I agree that they are slower, they have a classic sense to them. The story is one of the most original I've ever read, the writing superb, and it has a HISTORY, which most books don't have. There are historical events told throughout the story. Tolkien created a whole WORLD, a complete world in a million ways. He invented Hobbits, and his elves are the template for elves in many stories, including the Inheritance Cycle.

I, too, am a fan of Harry Potter. I agree that they are wonderfully written books, with a unique story and good character development. Rowling makes you love her characters, and since it is set in our own world and time, it makes it seem more real. But it's not, and will never be, a classic. It was not directed towards adults, so the writing doesn't have the quality that books like Lord of the Rings, Earthsea, and Dune have. There is a quality to those books, which are filled with history, set in entirely original lands, and with some of the most complex and fascinating plots the world has seen. Narnia, too, is a world of magic and wonder that, while can be easily read by younger audiences, will last for generations.

But while Harry and his world will be loved, likely more than LoTR, Earthsea, or other classics. But it will never rise to their ranks. Inheritance, too, is a well written book. Some aspects are less than original, but Eragon and Saphira are original and well written characters, created by a young author. Christopher Paolini's twist on the elves makes them more his own, and his dragons are the most famous of any book today. But the quality of writing is lower than classics. Alagaesia is a well created world, though, which is appreciable.

All in all, I enjoyed Harry Potter more than most books I've ever read. Their story and characters make me like it more than most. But it's not on par with Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings", LeGuins "Earthsea", C.S Lewis's "Chronicles of Narnia", Frank Herbert's "Dune", and other such books. They are classics, and Harry Potter and Inheritance aren't, and will never be.

Actually, it is hard to compare them that way. HP and inheritance have not had the test of time to see if they attain classic status.

But I cannot see either of them rising to the level of the Lord of the Rings. HP was entertaining, and fairly good, but it lost the wonder as it got towards the end. I know, it had to happen for the story, but that is what made me start reading it eight years ago.

Inheritance is greatly loved by many people, but it doesn't revolutionize the fantasy genre the way LOTR and the others did. The quality of writing IS lower, and I know he is young, but I do not think his work will be remembered beyond the present generation.
LOTR has, Potter maybe, but not Inheritance, I think.

Perfect way to put it. Good job

yeah, it was. Potter has a BETTER chance than Inheritance, but still not a great on.



well put. Like i said, Tolkien's elves are the basis for many modern elves in stories. I'm not degrading HP or Inheritance for their story, just saying that they don't match up to true classics.

You must be joking!!!! Im not trying to discredit Paolini as a writer but his work is nothing compared to Tolkien's and isn't even in par with Rowling (as much as I don't like Harry potter)
His work is very simply written, the plot is guessable from the start basicaly, and the writting it self is poor compared to the others.

True. I enjoy Inheritance, and will buy Brisingr the day it comes out, but the writing isn't on par with many other books I've read. It's a good story, and some parts of the plot are hard to guess, and I enjoy speculating, but his writing isn't nearly better than many writers previously mentioned.

well, hp was good and to prove that paolini is a great writer i must read Brisingr. i have 2 start readin the lord of the rings and the hobbit

Well, I didn't think the Hobbit was as good as the Lord of the Rings either. It's more of a prequel to establish some of the older characters.

Agreed. I don't think I've ever met someone who liked it more. It was still ok, but not the same.

Well, its been a while since I glanced at this topic. As a result, some very interesting discussions and points have arose that I am dying to respond to.

As a result, I will be dissecting various posts that provide what I think to be very interesting points, and adding my input thus:

From Bookworm:



Yes, but sodoes many other series, such as FRobert Jordan's Wheel of Time. And as much popularity as that has gained, it isn't a classic, as it hasn't really added anything to the genre.



I've always wondered and couldn't quite get my head around why millionsand millions of people around the world got addicted to Harry Potter. To me, its just another execellent story with a number of flaws, but nothing to make such a fuss about.

Oh, the series didn't make me cry - I thought it was a huge joke when Dumby and Sirus died. Oh, SPOILER! It was absolutely hilarious when Fred died.

By the way, did you know there has been case studies about Harry Potter addiction? People have had to get help from the Potter addiction. Talk about a book drug!



No they're not. Inheritance is basically Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, and Earthsea, and Belgariad thrown together in a messy heap. Basically, Paolini wanted to see what the end result of his "experiment" was.

To reiterate, Inheritance is Star Wars in medieval times - or should I say medieval Star Wars in Middle-Earth. Paolini's new ideas was basically a trashy dragon who must of come out of a toddler's cartoon, and ummm...got drunk. Really now....

In my opinion, the only awesome thing about Inheritance is the amount of fun critics such as myself can have pointing out its numerous plot holes, contradictions, and flaws.



A background story? Oh, you mean that hastily put together piece of junk at the back of the Eldest Limited Edition? I thought that covered 15 minutes in a day of an Alagaesia monk's life...



Now that, I have to say negative. If Paolini had such a great imagination, Inheritance wouldn't be described as plagerized from LotR, and Star Wars and numerous other books...Did you know he stole direct quotes from the Belgariad series? Yes he did. Also, he would have created an unique world, with original creatures not LotR based elves and dwarves. Also, he would have created a more original plot-line - not used the classic Star Wars line in Middle-Earth.

Lets hope that after Inheritance is done, CP moves out of fantasy and into another genre. His works demonstrate that he really is not made for fantasy writing.



They are. Absolute and utter master pieces. You don't know what you're missing out on. Also, maybe if you read LotR you'll realise that Inheritance was basically stolen from Tolkien.



Postitive. Rowling was more original than Paolini.


Lets see, who's next...

Ah, Seigemaster....



Too right.







Eragon and Saphira are not original. They are not well written. Saphira is a trashy piece of junk of a dragon that stepped out of a toddler's cartoon like I mentioned above. She is set for three year olds, and not for a High Fantasy series. In Alagaesia, she looks more than out of place.

To tell the truth, I would be extremely happy - jumping for joy and jiggling little dances if Saphira died and stayed that way. Maybe then the books would be a little less trashy.

Eragon and Saphira are not well written, they both give me the impressions that they jumped from the telly-tubbies into a high class fantasy world, and by their actions, they have ruined that world.

Paolini's elves have no originality whatsoever. They have been wrongly and greedily snatched from Middle-Earth - gone through surgury - and have been thrown into Alagaesia. In fact, they are inferior clones with a bad taste to those of Middle-Earth. In fact, I think the clones have somewhat tainted elves in general unfortunately.

I sincerely hope that Paolini's dragons are not the most popular today. As i have said, Saphira especially is the worst type of dragon ever to hit the fantasy series. Why was she named Saphira? She would have been named Fluffy, or Cuddly. Her profile certainly demonstrates those traites.

Who's next...

Saphira12, you're next!



Why are Paolini's books the best? You have to provide evidence or at least points from his story that you think make his series the best. By the way, what are the pthers?

Next...

Rien.



Weeeeeeeeeee!

Next...

Seige



I think, if Paolini reqrote the series from ground-up today, it would be a much better, polished up story, and actually ready for publication. Let's face it - currently his books would be the equivelent of a seventh grader's english project that got an A+.

Saphira12...

[/quote]

You do.

Sauron you have to much fun with this at times lol

But you are right in alot of your opinion, i think, and was there actualy people who had to see someone because they were adicted to Hp??

And yes, there was.

Nice post, Sauron.

I do have to say, some aspects (not too many) of Paolini's elves ARE original. Correct me if I'm wrong (my LOTR knowledge is a bit rusty), but their view on life (not eating meat), some of their traditions (that Blohdren festival), and the ability to use magic are original. But yes, basically, they're Tolkiens elves. But how can you beat his elves?

Urgals are partially new. Bigger than orcs, with horns, but he needed SOME sort of brutal beast. The Ra'zac are fairly original. And the similarities to SW are uncanny.

Eragon (Luke Skywalker, orphaned and living with his aunt and uncle in the middle of nowhere, joins the rebels, is a hero with special powers, etc.)

Brom (Obi-one, one of the last people of the old order, lives nearby the new hope for said order, teaches him, dies)

Oromis (Yoda, old, wise person, one of the last of the old order. Second mentor, pupil has to leave suddenly, comes back, he dies.)

The raz'ac could be seen as similar to Vader, in that they hunt the protagonist, and Murtagh is a help that comes along and saves him, like Han. It is very similar to Star Wars, plot wise. And if he re-wrote it, I imagine it would be better.

Because she can talk, got drunk, and basically acts completely the opposite of a dragon.



No, I think the Ra'zac are based off the Ring Wraiths (Black Riders) in Lord of the Rings. They, too, hunt the protagonist.

Uhhh how do decide what a dragon acts like? Just asking.

yeah, thats' a valid point.

and now that you mention it, the resemblance to the Ring Wraiths is an idea. That could be something else. Hoods, secrecy, personal servant to evil dude, freaky mounts, etc.

Yeah, honestly one could go through the books picking out refrences to LOTR, Star Wars etc. I have done that before. But it's not like SW and LOTR are new ideas either. Have any of you ever heard of the hero's journey? It's like the blueprint for these types of stories.
Here's a link if anyone is interested:
http://www.yourheroicjourney.com/Journey.shtml
A little long, but it explains what I am getting at.

What makes LOTR and SW better than Inheritance is that it takes this blueprint and makes it feel like a new story. Inheritance falters, because it borrows too liberally from other masterpieces. CP must make the series his own for it to be remembered.

yeah--I can definitely see that in LOTR, and a little less in SW. But its not a story--its a patter or style. Like you said, a blueprint. A way of writing. I think that we went over a slightly simpler version of this in Lit class.

But really if you think about it, you can take things from each of these author's books and see big resemblances. Is there really anymore original ideas out there that don't involve using stuff from other people? Well, I guess there is, but still...

First, let me just say that I think Paolini is a great author and I love his books. Why else would I be here? However, I don't think he is anywhere near in the same league as Tolkien and Rowling. Here's why:

Tolkein is pretty much the father of Fantasy. By no means did he write the FIRST Fantasy novel. However, before him, Fantasy wasn't popular and wasn't even a recognized genre to most. The Lord of the Rings is an outstanding piece of literature that gave Fantasy a new depth. It pretty much laid out the groundworks for Fantasy writers all over the world! Tolkien spent years learning about language and perfecting these novels. His dedication gave the world LOTR. Fantasy would never have been the same without him.

Now, Rowling is a different story. Her books are a completely different style and she wrote them much later that Tolkien, long after the "rules" of the Fantasy Genre had been laid out. However, she made a HUGE contribution to the genre. Her books finally brought Fantasy out into the wide world and got many people interested in it. Lord of the Rings is a brilliant work of art. But, for many people they are hard to read. Most people are turned off by his style and find it hard to follow. Harry Potter is much easier to follow, and it's themes are much easier to relate to. Before HP, many people completely overlooked Fantasy. With HP now out there, many people realize that not all Fantasy is like LOTR. Rowling got many people to read other Fantasy novels. Not only did she do that, but she got millions of people to actually find reading interesting! Besides the Bible, I think HP might be one of the most read books in the world! And Rowling did that for Fantasy.

Basically, bot Rowling and Tolkien have created new levels of Fantasy. They are pretty much the elite of Fantasy, and there is no way to choose which one is a better author. They are basically equals. I don't think either is better than the other. What they gave to the world of Fantasy is equally important. I just don't think that Paolini compares to them. Sorry.

I think CP because his books are really good and the suspence is like WOW JRR tolkien is feally good but it kinda drgs on and Rowling is just to predictible

For a while ago I would have said Tolkien
but after reading the first and soon the second
book I most say Paolini. Even if Tolkien was the first
who wrote like this and all that I still think Paolini got
something original. I´m also was and is a big fan to
Rowling I´ve read all Harry Potter books over and over
again. So even if I´m a fan of all of them Paolini is the best.

Definatly Tolkien for me. I love how he uses lots of imagination in his characters and the places he describes. I love almost all fantasy books but these outclass all. I really got attatched to most of the characters in "The Hobbit" and the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy.