Active Users:865 Time:23/12/2024 11:24:49 AM
It was in Book 6 of the LotR. Fanatic-Templar Send a noteboard - 10/12/2011 07:39:57 AM
Everybody knows that WoT = Lotr 7.0 or 'Lotr on steroids';). There's nothing wrong with it, Tolkien was in similar situation (see myths from 800-1400). Of course there are a few twists: Mr. Jordan put The Scouring of the Shire into Book 4 (Perrin vs WC) instead the last book, Rand (Frodo) will go to Valinor (another planet/another dimension) etc.

Book1 - The Hobbt
Book 2 - Fellowship of the Ring
Book 3 - Two Towers
Book 4 - Return of the King
See?


Each of the latter three contained two books.

And the Hobbit, while taking place in the same setting and serving as a prequel of sorts, does not deal with the same narrative and should not be included as part of the LotR sequence, elsewise one would also need to start including things like the Silmarillion.
The first rule of being a ninja is "do no harm". Unless you intend to do harm, then do lots of harm.
~Master Splinter

Victorious in Bergioyn's legendary 'Reverse Mafia'. *MySmiley*
Reply to message
Ogiers = real humans, Rand and co. = hobbits? - 09/12/2011 05:44:37 PM 1377 Views
No *NM* - 09/12/2011 08:31:02 PM 552 Views
+1 *NM* - 09/12/2011 08:44:19 PM 402 Views
+∞^2 *NM* - 09/12/2011 09:38:41 PM 359 Views
thank you *NM* - 11/12/2011 11:24:24 PM 477 Views
Nah, and Wot =/= LOTR on steroids - 10/12/2011 01:24:31 AM 915 Views
Also referenced: Queen Elizabeth, Ann Landers, John Glenn, Sally Ride, and the Mercedes-Benz. *NM* - 10/12/2011 05:02:21 AM 471 Views
And Elaida is clearly Ann Coulter. - 15/12/2011 06:16:06 PM 710 Views
+1000 *NM* - 30/12/2011 05:49:50 PM 378 Views
Scouring the Shire WAS in Book 4 for Tolkien as well. Read the damn books already. - 10/12/2011 05:06:03 AM 815 Views
It was in Book 6 of the LotR. - 10/12/2011 07:39:57 AM 823 Views
Sorry but not true. LOTR is seperate from The Hobbit. - 10/12/2011 02:08:23 PM 786 Views
Nerds - 11/12/2011 02:45:14 AM 868 Views
you say that like its a bad thing - 11/12/2011 09:36:27 AM 1109 Views
Well... - 11/12/2011 08:53:26 PM 810 Views
I don't see why that last part is relevant. - 11/12/2011 09:54:26 PM 730 Views

Reply to Message