Fantasy: Pre and Post Tolkien

[Hookbill the Goomba]

A few days ago I was discussing with a good friend of mine ideas for dissertations and we got onto the subject of the fantasy genre in general and what effect Tolkien had on it. First off, I have to admit I have a very low view of a lot of modern fantasy, despite the fact that I am indeed trying my own hand at it. Pre-Tolkien fantasy, fairy stories and the like seem, from the little I have read, to have a certain element to them which is unusual.
Some of you who are more knowledgeable may be able to fill the gaps in my knowledge but it seems to me that the fantasy books (often called simply 'fairy tales' but where do you draw the line?) have a sense of what I will call 'the rules of fairy'. The sorts of things that can and cannot happen in a fairy land, the characteristics of what you may call 'stock characters' and races bear similarities. Some of Tolkein's other literature - Farmer Giles, Smith and the rest - seem to bear more in common (in narrative 'voice') to older fantasies than The Lord of the Rings.
Perhaps there is something about the style of The Lord of the Rings that sets it apart. One has to look at it, not as simply a tale explaining the exploits of those who find themselves in a magical world, but rather an account of fading of that world and almost 'lack' of magic. The way Tolkien approaches The Lord of the Rings (especially in the later books and chapters) bears solid differences, I think, to other fantasies in that it becomes more 'serious'. There is less 'magic' as the book goes on. In the opening books we have Mad Baggins and his disappearing act, Gandalf's fireworks, Tom Bombadil, The Barrow Wights ( ), the Balrog, Galadriel's mirror and so on. 'Magic' in the true sense or not, there is something 'magical' or 'other worldly' about these elements that seem to grow less important as the tale grows and becomes more an account of the War of the Ring. Some of this may be traced to the focus on Hobbits, who stumble out of their quiet world to find a wider plain full of strange things and everything seems new and unusual to them. Where as Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli have a wider view and see these 'wonders' as just other parts of the world and not 'new'.
Back to my main point.
Tolkien, it would appear, is not necessarily presenting a fairy story or even a new mythology, but rather a new epic adventure, an account of things that could well happen. There are elements of magic, yes, but so there are in a lot of ancient literature, Beowulf, the Odyssey and the rest, while quite 'serious' have magical things in them. As Tolkien says in an interview, it is our world 'at a different stage of imagination'. Fairy tales have a certain removal from this world. Take Phantastes, for example; one of those 'step out of our world into another' premises. Although a compelling story it bears striking differences to Tolkien's whole approach of beginning and ending in his secondary world and no mention of coming to ours, but a suggested assertion that it is our world and if one built a time machine, one could go there.
After Tolkien there are an awful lot of works that try to emulate this approach. But the 'traveling to another world' style remains (possibly popularised more by C S Lewis, but I am not sure) and in my opinion falls a little short for reasons I find difficult to articulate. There is much more focus on war these days in fantasy. There are Dark Lords, armies of evil and good, discussions of power and heroes likely and unlikely.
But who really affected Fantasy more? Tolkien or Lewis?
They both certainly made their mark. I think that Tolkien had a more stylistic affect. Lewis reintroduced the trans-world travel idea which is still popular. Even the idea of 'the prophecies' of a chosen one, usually a child or group of children, has filtered through from Narnia. But with this approach it becomes increasingly difficult to make such stories appealing to an older audience. The suggestions are viewed as absurd and often the 'magic' gets taken out in an attempt to make it more accessible to the 'older and wiser'. And yet, the success of the Harry Potter series with both young and old raises more questions. Is the removal of Magic a good thing? Obviously not. The magic is, so to speak, part of the enchantment. I do not think that the plausibility of a tale has much to do with how enjoyable it is. As a child, I remember hearing fairy stories and loving them, even though I knew it was absurd, but it was the very absurdity that created the appeal.

So... How did Tolkien effect the way fantasy is written? Did he shift the focus? Did he in any way change the way people feel about Fantasy and fair tales as a genre?

[Azaelia of Willowbottom]

I could be entirely wrong about this, but I think that after Tolkien, and certainly after the LOTR movies, fantasy has really become a lot more acceptable and wide-spread as a mainstream genre. I'm not entirely sure that's a good thing. More and more of what I see on bookstore shelves look like knock-offs of Lord of the Rings (or Harry Potter). The few times I've even opened a contemporary fantasy novel, I haven't been particularly impressed (though Harry Potter is an exception to that rule).

I kind of wonder if LOTR or something equal to it in terms of sheer scope, power, and brilliance could even theoretically have been written today. As fantasy becomes more mainstream, I think that the playing field shrinks and there are suddenly certain expectations that may not have been present before. Hmm.

[Lindale]

What Tolkien did was stereotypes BUT NOT IN A BAD, LOUSY WAY. Look at Aragorn. The Campbell hero, with all the prophecies before his birth, his childhood, the call to adventure, the meeting with the goddess... and then Gandalf. The wise old man with the beard. He has his weaknesses and mistakes too, Gandalf had. So why was Tolkien famous?

Elements from Nordic (the Twilight of the Gods thing and the Unchaining of Melkor after long Ages) and other myths. And his own imaginations (oh I love Beren & Luthien--old theme of love-conquers-all, but had a good impact, part of a saga but a complete story in itself. Spice it up that it's written on Tolkien and his wife's graves...). He wrote all his life, and got real good academic background (but i'm not against writers who were drop-outs; heard of Nick Joaquin, my country's only good writer?).

Sil is Old-Testament-like, and you got to admit, it's not a piece of cake to write history. LotR, which is in a way a continuation of Sil, not a joke as compared to other fantasies sprouting like mushrooms. It's not the writings of a teenager either (I believe Eragon was sold mainly because they marketed the fact that it was a teen who wrote it), it was virtually his life. Or, to make my point clearer, Tolkien wrote soemthing almost like religion. That's why he's good; a religion found on other religions that are very diverse yet alike. And expalins the stereotypes anyway. Add the fact that Tolkien got there first, or rather, ahead.


No offense, but in Harry Potter, I think the marketing had a lot to do with it being such a hit (remember Dan Brown? His Angels and Demons and Da Vinci Code had the same plot elements, but why did people read him anyway? Brown challenged Christianity. Challenging Christianity has its own click; Brown generally rode with it.) The other fantasies? I hate to admit it, but when I watched Order of the Phoenix there were a lot of fantasy films. Riding alongside Harry Potter? I think so, and my professors agree. They were (forgive me!) lousy, they were a lot like Narnia, this boy who was the seventh son of a seventh son who was destined to save the world, and then there was this other movie about a little girl who was to save the world too, and there've been prophecies too, and they've old bearded men and old women as their mentors... rip-offs. Whenever I go to the bookstore I skip the sci-fi & fantasy section, because apart from the Tolkien and the Harry and the Lewis they're always about some lousy kid who's an orphan who's gotta save the world. The only thing that's different about them are their names.

Lewis... a reason I don't like him so much, the concept of Christmas in Lion, Witch, and Wardrobe. Only that. Just the obvious Christian roots. Otherwise he's good; but it's not Narnia that I love about him, it's Screwtape Letters that my philo prof made us read. Real good bit of stereotype devils with a twist.

[Lalwendë]

What an opener Hookbill!

Firstly I think fantasy has been much more restricted post-Tolkien. Authors try to emulate him in either style or scope. Publishers hope to get writers to emulate him in content (not another ruddy elf!). Readers just want more product (but mostly leave unsatisfied as Big Macs cannot beat Roast Beef dinners, no?).

Before Tolkien nobody was trying to emulate him! And after Tolkien it takes a brave writer to reject Tolkien - note the ire with which Pullman meets from Tolkienistas, yet he's entitled to say what he says and in some ways is right, as writers are inevitably compared to Tolkien and I do think that this is both unfair and unproductive! Upping the ante may be the only way to escape the chains of Middle-earth

I always say that a fantasy writer should emulate nobody - the whole premise of fantasy and sci-fi and all speculative fiction is that it represents the wildest imaginings of the human mind so why copy an existing writer? That's in some ways behind my dislike of people investing too much time in fan-fic as I feel quite frustrated that some clearly brilliant writers are wasting talents when they could be writing new books about new worlds to go on the shelves for me to read and enjoy!

So in some ways, Tolkien's influence has spoiled the genre because of the imitators, good and bad, but he has also inspired many to go out there and write totally original work, either through love or dislike. Pullman mentions him, so does Gaiman, so does Clarke, and so does Rowlings. His name is plastered over the blurb on the back of any 'epic' tale - even on Jean M Auel novels which are nothing at all like Tolkien apart from in length.

Tolkien in many ways helped to modernise fantasy and epic fiction (I'd rank Mervyn Peake alongside him for this effort) - he may have used ancient archetypes like wizards, goblins and dragons, and he may have utilised the style of the sagas in the Sil and in Return of the King, but he was not an antiquarian. His stories have incredibly modern themes - war, environmental destruction, examinations of master/servant relationships, totalitarianism, the place of women, addiction, mental illness, crumbling empires, devastating technology and weaponry etc...Where so much 'modern' fantasy falls down is that it is hoodwinked by the wizards, hobbits and elves and looks to the past for its themes - Tolkien did not do this, he was relevant to his readers' lives. Maybe that's why he is good and others are....not?

[Rumil]

Hi all,

I was wondering if anyone had read any pre-Tolkien 'modern' (ie not Homer, the Edda or mediaeval) fantasy. I'm thinking of Lord Dunsany here who I've heard of but never read. How does pre-Tolkien fantasy compare to Middle Earth? Are they forgotten masterpieces or as formulaic as some of the current crop? Did they influence Tolkien?

Most of all is it worth my while seeking them out at the bookshop?

[Hookbill the Goomba]

I personally have no problem with fantasy writers doing a nod to Tolkien. If they do, though, I like it to be nice and subtle. Not too stare in the face obvious. The sort of thing where a select few will say "Ah! I know what that is a reference to! " and be tremendously happy about it.

The problem comes in the fact that the older fairy tale style of telling a fantasy seems not so popular these days. It doesn't seem to matter how compelling the story or interesting the events, if not told in the grant Tolkienesque way, publishers don't want to know. I handed someone a copy of The Golden Key recently and when he gave it back he said 'Not very good is it? I mean the story's okay, but the guy talks like its all made up and not real.'

Perhaps that is the issue. Maybe the wider audience want the realness. I myself like the unrealness of The Golden Key and others, for me it is part of the appeal.

Another thing is the 'visitor from our world goes to other world' premise is a useful plot device, really. There always has to be that ignorant party through whom the reader learns about the world. Tolkien is a little more subtle in the way he goes about this. There are many ignorant parties, but none so blindingly obvious. All of the Hobbits have their field of expertise which they exploit to give us information about The Shire. Once they are out of it, Strider then gives them the information. But it is different. The Hobbit's stories and Aragorn's tales are given to them on a level the characters understand, first and foremost. Which explains why one friend of mine once said 'I'm always amused when Tolkien goes off on one. You know, mentions some random person you've never heard of and tells you his life story. I remember thinking "Who the hell is Feanor?" and "What on earth is Earendil?"' Here is Tolkien's genius! The characters have some sense of what it is, but you do not. The mystery is in the lack of knowledge. Not everything is unveiled, there is darkness around the edges.

Originally Posted by Rumil

Hi all,

I was wondering if anyone had read any pre-Tolkien 'modern' (ie not Homer, the Edda or mediaeval) fantasy. I'm thinking of Lord Dunsany here who I've heard of but never read. How does pre-Tolkien fantasy compare to Middle Earth? Are they forgotten masterpieces or as formulaic as some of the current crop? Did they influence Tolkien?

Most of all is it worth my while seeking them out at the bookshop?

George MacDonald and Andrew Lang are two that I have read.

[Lalwendë]

Think I see what you're getting at now It's the way the stories are told. The way of fantasy/sci-fi is that somehow the writer has to lead the reader into the new world, and Tolkien does seem to choose to just dump the reader in the midst of it - there are no magic wardrobes to go through, no weird dreams or altered states. You just open the book and Middle-earth exists without any intervention from some contemporary person we might know or even be.

Even so, it's not quite that simple - Tolkien has the Hobbits be recognisable as being like English people for a very good reason I think, to give us something even vaguely familiar to take us deeper into the world he creates. We can identify with Hobbits to a greater extent and along with them, we are learning about all this mad stuff like Elves, Balrogs, Wizards etc. Hobbits are like us for a very good reason.

Still, I like the way Tolkien does this. The story is immediate, compared to Narnia, which is not. I'm slightly suspicious of stories where other worlds exist only via portals or dreams or whatever - something about them doesn't ring true to me, as though the protagonist/narrator is experiencing this because they ahve a mental problem or are an overly-imaginative child or something. I prefer to skip all of that and just open the page in the midst of the new world - it allows me to suspend my rational mind.

[Meriadoc1961]

L. Frank Baum wrote his Oz stories of fantasy before Tolkien. If Tolkien was influenced by him I can not say other than that The Hobbit was written for children, as were the Oz books. Although the hobbits in the Lord of the Rings came to symbolize English society in many ways, I do not believe that was how they were originally portrayed in The Hobbit. I believe they were intended to be children. It was only through the (accidental?) introduction of deeper things in The Hobbit, such as Elrond, Gandalf, the Necromancer and eventually the ring itself that an adult fantasy, The Lord of the Rings, was born.

Some would also say that Jules Verne predated Tolkien in fantasy writings, although one could say he was more scie-fi than fantasy. Still, Vernes does employ monsters in his writing, as we all know does Tolkien.

I believe it was a combination of Tolkien's religion and his knowledge of European mythologies, particularly Norse and Scandanavian mythologies, that influenced the direction of his epic tale of Middle-earth. Some complain because they say there is no religion in the books. I see religion throughout it. Does anyone recall Frodo feeling rustic because hobbits did not observe the Standing Silence that looked towards the West that always was, as Faramir instructed him to do before they ate their meal? What is that but a moment of prayer to the Provider? What did Gandalf mean when he said that Frodo was meant to have the ring, and that was good, if he did not mean that God was behind him having it?

Merry

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

Although I haven't read much pre-Tolkienian fantasy, I did find this article about British uses of Norse myth before JRRT [EDIT: this used to link to Andrew Wawn's lecture Philology and Fantasy Before Tolkien at the Sigurður Nordal Institute, which is no longer online]. I think that what this points out very clearly is that the re-use of Germanic mythology, often combined with a rejection of modern idiom, was already well established and popular long before Tolkien began to write. In terms of language, what Tolkien seems to have done is to adopt a far more readable form of 'watered' archaism than some of his predecessors. William Morris in particular sometimes allows his own learning to get the better of him, and on those occasions his prose becomes either completely unreadable without a Middle English or Old Norse dictionary, or so cumbersome that it loses all beauty. His style may have been what Tolkien had in mind when discussing correct word usage in Beowulf translation, although Tolkien did have good reasons to think well of Morris in general.

Of course, William Morris' generation was caught up in the flush of newly discovered territories of myth, legend and history that were being opened up by the emerging science of comparative philology. The excitement of people brought up on Classical myths on finding another legendary world far closer to home can only be imagined these days, but the reactions of contemporary authors survive in often surprising works of fiction and historical romance. What has changed since Tolkien is that reactions to this material have tended to follow him, in that many authors began to write in that style who knew nothing of Ing or Finn, the Wulfings or the Nibelungs. Their reactions were to the same material, but as seen through Tolkien's vision, so that Tolkien replaces his beloved northern myths as the emulated source. Alongside this motive is the legacy of his popularity, which makes him difficult to ignore, and which presents the eternal temptation to react to his work.

Since this is really not my area, I'll leave others to continue the argument. To my mind, Tolkien fits into a long tradition of English writing that stretches back into the Anglo-Saxon period, and which revolves around imaginary landscapes and strange adventures among supernatural beings. That many people respond so his work so strongly suggests that there is as much a taste for such writing in the modern world as there was in the Middle Ages, and fully justifies the earlier work of the storytelling philologists and the dream-weavers of the fantastic who were Tolkien's predecessors.