A Couple of Articles of Interest

[Leyrana Silumiel]

Leo Grin at Big Hollywood has started writing a series essentially about the greatest fantasists and how their work is considered when compared to the likes of George R.R. Martin and other modern fantasists. Fascinating reads really, because he seems to have done his research!

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/lg...en-fantasists/
This first link is for his article "The Bankrupt Nihilism of Our Fallen Fantasists"

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/lg...olkien-part-1/
And then there is his second article: "Sanity and Sanctity: The Ennobling Fantasy of J.R.R. Tolkien Part 1"


Looking forward to your thoughts (and to his continuation of the article series!).

[Nerwen]

Interesting articles. I do think Leo Grin's going overboard though, in basically saying, "this IS modern fantasy", and "this IS the liberal mindset". That's such a huge generalization in both cases that it's close to being a strawman argument.

Ideology aside, it's actually natural that when the conventions of a genre become too obvious, people try inverting them or otherwise playing with them as an "instant originality, just add water" recipe. And actually, there's nothing wrong with that– at first. Then, if everyone does it, it becomes a cliché in its turn; also it can become a bit of a dead end, since it depends on those same earlier conventions, and on the reader's awareness of them. On that note, even if there was a period when the kind of thing he's talking about was the only game in town– I suppose you could say it was getting that way a few years back– I don't think it's like that anymore.

[Bêthberry]

What Nerwen said.

I think ole Leo is falling back on one of the main tropes of journalism today: hyperbole. It seems you have to grab 'em in by making outrageous, grandiose claims. Plus he's not really in strong control of his tone.

Originally Posted by Leo Grin

Now Dyson was mocking the work of the man who would become the most influential purveyor of Christianized fiction of that same century

He's trying to claim the sanctity of Tolkien's writing while calling The Professor a mere officer of provisions or supplies? And I suppose the author of Beowulf didn't Christianise his fiction?