The Tolkien Template - Carrying on the torch of mythology and folklore

[ReededGoat]

I'm interested to hear people's comments and philosophies on the following...
Much of the fantasy written today is garbage. People churn out imitative junk without truly paying homage to their sources. Many might say that all modern fantasy is based on Tolkien, but Tolkien himself would probably disagree. Tolkien admittedly was fashioning a myth based quite heavily on many existing myths. What Tolkien accomplished was the very meaning of myth - the stories are created from various sources - real experience, imagination, exaggeration; and are then filtered through many minds and mouths as time rolls ever on. He took from many sources (the man was a veritable goldmine of medieval myth and language), and fashioned a brilliant epic in the literary style and feel of myth.
What much of today's fantasy fails to embody is a style that is both captivating and interesting. Much description of environment is a run-on laundry list of flowery phraseology. Example (made up by myself): They awoke the following morning, sleep still heavy on their minds. The glowing embers from the fire the night before provided the illusion of warmth and comfort. The morning dew glistened on the blades of grass, and songbirds heralded the coming of the sun.
Whereas in Tolkien (and in old myths and legends from long ago) things are, literally, more intense:
Down in the lowest and most sheltered corner of the dell they lit a fire, and prepared a meal. The shades of evening began to fall, and it grew cold. They were suddenly aware of great hunger, for they had not eaten anything since breakfast; but they dared not make more than a frugal supper. The lands ahead were empty of all save birds and beasts, unfriendly places deserted by all the races of the world. (from FOTR p. 202, Houghton-Mifflin, second edition).
JRRT keeps things simple, but strings things in a way that flows and sets the scene perfectly. In cases where things need to be more intense, he adopts the absolutely ridiculous nature of myth, where the impossible becomes possible, and if not handeled correctly, or given the proper context, could become downright silly:
With that he seized a great horn from Guthláf his banner-bearer, and he blew such a blast upon it that it burst asunder. And straightway all the horns in the host were lifted up in music, and the blowing of the horns of Rohan in that hour was like a storm upon the plain and a thunder in the mountains. (ROTK, p. 112, ibid)
or
And then all the host of Rohan burst into song, and they sang as they slew, for the joy of battle was on them, and the sound of their singing that was fair and terrible came even to the City. (ROTK, p. 113, ibid)
To compare, here is a brief bit from Lady Gregory's Cuchulainn of Muirthemne (Irish mythology)
And he cut down a tree with his sword, and it having four branches, and he lopped them short, and cleared the tree; and he stood up in his chariot, and with one cast he drove the tree into the ground that it stood deep and firm, and he set the four heads he had struck off on the four lopped branches of it. (Cuchulainn of Muirthemne, Lady Gregory, p. 152, Colin Smythe Limited)
It should not be suggested that modern writers of fantasy throw off their current techniques and begin writing in a style based on Early Modern English, or that such exaggerated feats of mythical proportions be blatantly incorporated into their novels, but it might behoove more writers to examine how their actual prose might enhance (or inhibit) their stories and how they are conveyed to the reader. There is power in some writing that has nothing to do with the plot or characters...JRRT is a writer who reflects this concept. It is good to look at a poem he was quite in love with during his life - Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. The alliteration used in that poem often tonally reflects what is happening in the story...things become more difficult to say when difficult events are transpiring, the language flows when the story is relaxed, and the language becomes very rhythmic and quick when the story touches upon festivities...I will not quote here, many editions are available for study.
Fantasy as a genre is in its infancy in our world...perhaps many problems arise from writers trying to create something wholly original, when no art is truly (at its very core) original. In acknowledging the various sources that are imitated and drawn from, one transcends the problem of trying to separate from the very traditions that imbue stories with vibrancy and life.
As a disclaimer, much of what has been said above relates the very insecurities I have with my own writing, and I will always be struggling to overcome them. As such, this thread is not intended to aid me in my personal problems, it is in the very analysis of them that I become curious about other people's opinions regarding the observations I've made.

Thanks for reading,
RG

[ November 11, 2002: Message edited by: ReededGoat ]

[thorondil]

In my opinion Tolkien wrote from some higher or deeper level of the heart/spirit and I imagine that sometimes like Tuor he "marvelled to hear himself speak so." The beauty and depth of some of his prose is unparalled. Born in Norse myths like that of Sigurd and Volsung and Fafnir the dragon, and in the woodlands he played in as a child, his work became more than mere myth; it became a spiritual excercise.

'Do you wonder at this?'he said.'Behold! thy creatures now live, free from thy will! For I have seen thy humility, and taken pity on your impatience. Thy making I have taken up into my design.'
--quoted from letter 212

[kaleidoscope]

A lot of the fantasy books I have read (and I've read quite a few) seem to copy off Tolkien in more than one way. Most have something to the effect of "the little unimportant person goes off to kill big bad guy without knowing much about what they are doing to begin with and group of people that go with little unimportant person to help get lost somewhere along the way." And of course the good guys always win. It is my opinion that these have been copied off Tolkien because his books are the earliest ones in which I have seen that happen. That's just my opinion, though.

[Gwaihir the Windlord]

You have a point. The thing is though, fantasty, because of Tolkien, is a particular genre that contains a lot of spin-offy type novels. Rather like Star Wars, except these fantasy books have nothig to do with Tolkien but are inspired by it.

Anyone who is inspired by another author to go and write a book is bound to be somewhat trashy; their story is going to be too close to the inspiring author. You can be inspired by other authors to write, kind of write in general, but if you follow them too closely you're bound to look fake. You have to have your own unique world to set fantasy in.

Having said this, the problem may be in your own mind. Perhaps you are sort of comparing fantasy you read with Tolkien? Well, since Tolkien himself is insurpassable, you get a bit of a problem there, you see? Personally I don't tend to read fantasy for that reason; I find it too generally be a poor imitation of Tolkien. Once you've read the works of the Prof, everything else is naturally going to seem rather inept.

I make one exception. Philip Pullman and his 'His Dark Materials' trilogy. I spose you'd call that fantasy, although it isn't the usual, run of the mill crude imitation stuff. In fact he bears no resemblance to the Great Man at all. He's very good though. Incredible imagination.

[ReededGoat]

I disagree that a writer inspired by another writer will write something trashy...far from it. I think part of the problem is not truly acknowledging where you are getting your stuff from. Many people try to hard to be original, and many times they are working within a closely imitative context (much to their own obliviousness, sometimes). Better to know fully that you are imitating, because then you are free to just write. In music composition it has been said that the best composer is one who steals well...from other composers. There is an argument to be made that nothing is truly original - I think there are some that get close, like James Joyce, but even in his crazy novel Ulysses, he was using the template of the Odyssey - thereby imitating one of the oldest works of literature known to man! Tom Stoppard the playwright can be closely tied to Beckett, but he has a voice all his own at the same time. A lot of my problems with the fantasy I speak of is in the actual writing...many of the stories are great! I have read many novels and said to myself - the stories are good, the characters are good, but the writing is lacking. It's like the spit-shine to the whole thing, and Tolkien's still got the shiniest car on the block.
That said, I do find it difficult not to consider JRRT when reading other fantasy, but I am able to evaluate based on my own criteria, without holding it next to JRRT.

Thanks for the responses - great to read them,
RG

[littlemanpoet]

Greetings and well met, ReededGoat. Fascinating name - a reference to the deity Pan?

*bows and tips bard's cap*

There is a lot of imitative junk out there. I personally think this has at least as much to do with the publishing industry as lazy authors. I also believe that there are some writers who so badly want to get published that they prostitute their craft to the whims of the publishers. Therefore, mostly imitative stuff gets published.

I think you would be interested in these older threads that have to do with similar slants on this topic:Writing in the Spirit of Tolkien

Many might say that all modern fantasy is based on Tolkien, but Tolkien himself would probably disagree.

With good reason. Other equally powerful influences on modern fantasy are the Arthurian legends; Robert E. Howard's sword & sorcery tradition; and science fantasy (which I distinguish both from science fiction & fantasy in that sci-fan concerns itself with aliens and starships, but rather than mechanics, it deals with Light and Dark, and all the archetypical stuff.

Another thread that might interest you is: Are You Writing Serious Fantasy?

The above mentioned thread was a spin-off of a discussion that dealt with the whole question of whether fantasy is even a valid genre, and why doesn't any of it measure up to Tolkien?

The other thread (which I can't find!!!! arg!) was called, "Are there any valid criticisms? (aka Kalessin's rant)". I highly recommend it. You'll feel right at home - if you can find it.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

I found the thread littlemanpoet was looking for; here is Kalessin's Rant. Enjoy!

[Birdland]

The one truly original element that the Prof created, that is now copied in most fantasy novels, is the Hero as a "small person". (Not small just in terms of height, but in being a commoner) Before that, the Commoner as Hero was relegated to the the Fairy Tale, which were directed to children, usually as a moral compass or a teaching aid. The Mythic Quest was usually considered a more "grown-up" tale, and the Hero was usually of the nobility; a knight, king or powerful warrior. (Or in the case of very early Science Fiction, a "Man of Science".)

In the Fairy Tale, the Commoner Hero would have an adventure, which would, in the end, lead to a growth in status and earthly rewards. ("The Hobbit", is a classic example of the Fairy Tale, in fact.)

In the Mythic Quest, the Warrior Hero would endure much more hardship, and would also undergo a period of self-discovery, and in the end, may even suffer a fall from grace and status (usually due to the sin of Hubris.)

Tolkien was the first to successfully combine the two genres: The Commoner as Mythic Hero. Frodo summed up the difference very succinctly: "This is no treasure-hunt, no there-and-back journey. I am flying from deadly peril into deadly peril." And in the end the most deadly peril was his loss of innocence. His fall from "Hobbit Grace", as it were.

This seems to be the element that most other fantasy writers seem to overlook when trying to copy Tolkien. They use the Commoner Hero, but too often the character does not go through the changes that make him a truely Mythic Hero. There is no fall from grace for them. They go through all the trappings of a Mythic Quest, and yet do not change. All they are left with is some great stories to tell by the fireside, as they go back to their old life. Their ending is more like Samwise's, not Frodo's.

[Túroch]

Wow that's one long post, but a good one ReededGoat. Well here is my humble opinion on the subject. One of the reasons that Tolkiens fantasy is so ground breaking is he wrote it as a history of Middle-Earth not mearly a tale of it. Living in pre-WWII England as he did he was distrested by the increasing urbanization and lack of english mythology. This guy could speak and read ancient Anglo-Saxon! Thats a feat. He wanted to create some sort of mythology that England could have for it's own. A deep and rich mythic history full of tales of woe and heroics. That's what gives Tolkiens work such amazing depths. Now some could say that Tolkien himself copied many Norse legends and mythology, most notabley the Ring of the Nibelung. But I don't think this the case. Tolkien used many values and ideals that the norse used. Mainly becuase the history he was creating was for an Anglo-Saxon people, pretty close to the Norse.

I do heartily agree that many modern authors tend to copy some of Tollkiens theme's and many how do just churn out novels that are cheap imitations of the genuine article. Most notable in my opinion is Robert Jordan [img]smilies/mad.gif[/img] but that is my OPINION.

There are some fantasy novels that don't follow Tolkien's path, The Last Unicorn by Peter S. Beagle is one. So obviously just because you write fantasy you don't have to follow Tolkien. So why do we keep noticing similarities. Well for one reason Tolkien tales have some themes that resonante not just in all off Fantasy but in human nature, the theme of, "the little unimportant person goes off to kill big bad guy without knowing much about what they are doing to begin with and group of people that go with little unimportant person to help get lost somewhere along the way" has been used in many of the books as Kaleidoscope pointed out. This has a theme of Hope & of the weak fighting against the strong. One of Tolkien's more prevelant themes is that the first shall be last, and the last shall be first. Sam, who starts out as the lowest, a mere servant, becomes the saviour. Who is the hero in LOTR? I'
d say it was Sam. After Frodo was captured he kept on, nad would not throw away his quest. If not for Sam the quest would have been a failure. My favorite them is of forgiveness and redemption. In LOTR redemption is the key. Pity stayed Bilbo's hand from killing Gollum, and Frodo did much the same. Frodo's decision to have pity on Gollum was a decieding factor in the story. If Frodo had not forgivin him then the qeust would not of Suceeded. There is also the example of Boromir's repemdption and Argorn forgiving his previous actions. I wont go into the other themes. Some of these themes are hard to escape from and so sometimes it is understandable to have a little of Tolkien in your work. Although only a little, and more in the themes and objectives then in outright stealing characters and landscapes.

So not all modern fantasy is terrible just a large percent of it. You just have to find an author that above all is writing to tell a good story not make mega bucks by getting paid by the word and pushing out huge amounts of trash
......cough...Jordan...Cough. Tolkien's works are the works of a great historian and wonderful linguist who wanted most of all to tell a good story and he certinly did.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Gwaihir----

On a side issue....I also think Pullman stands far above most other fantasy writers. When you read Pullman, it's as if you've taken Tolkien's ideas and stood them on their head in a very imaginative way. Some find his themes upsetting. I do not always agree with him, but I found the books mesmerizing!

Bird--

Yes, I agree with you. You have said it very gracefully. It is Frodo's loss of innocence which makes him so compelling to us. What makes him different than many contemporary fantasy figures is that he is hurt and suffering but there is no cynicism there, no rejection of the wider ideals that placed him in the situation he's in. He's still the same gentle Frodo, only very, very hurt. So much goes unsaid at the end of the book!

ReededGoat

Interesting topic!

People churn out imitative junk without truly paying homage to their sources.

I'm afraid the problem is even broader than this. The sad thing is that education has changed since the days of Tolkien. It's not just that fantasy authors don't pay homage to their sources. Many are totally ignorant of them! History and mythology have slipped from our common understanding. We can no longer assume if a person is 'educated', he or she will be acquainted with certain basic works.

We are a very practical age. We no longer even give lip service to the creedo that it's important to get a good liberal arts education. College students specialize in practical subjects at a very young age, gearing up to making a practical living. They gain something, but they lose something too.

Have you seen the recent interview by T.A. Shippey, a philologist who has done some great stuff on JRRT and Middle-earth? Shippey fears that we will never again see the likes of fantasy authors J.R.R. Tolkien or T.H. White whose works stand far above the rest. The reason is that we no longer have the education to produce such quirky, eccentric and erudite minds. This is very sad, but I am afraid he is right.

sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[littlemanpoet]

Ursula K. LeGuin's EarthSea series is another very good set of fantasy books. There is a sense of Place in her works that sets it apart from anything having to do with Tolkien. Her works stand on their own merit. I personally don't see why she doesn't get more credit.

we no longer have the education to produce such quirky, eccentric and erudite minds. This is very sad, but I am afraid he is right.

I cannot, will not, do not, agree. I most strongly and courteously disagree, Child. In a certain website that shall go unnamed except in my signature, [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img] I have made the acquaintance of writers young and old who have plenty of the quirk, eccentricity, and erudition to which you refer. Maybe home schooling has something to do with that, I don't know, but that is not the only thing. I will say it again, I think the greatest heap of blame may be laid at the feet of overly conservative publishing houses. "Go with a winner" is the creed, which means stuff that's proven to make money and lots of it. Remember, it was through a series of quirks of fate (some may call it) that Tolkien's works ever saw the published page.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Littlemanpoet,

I do indeed believe that there are young writers out there who are wonderfully gifted with words and who have a deep feeling for fantasy. And you are probably right in saying that adjectives like quirky, eccentric, and erudite can be applied to them.

Yet I would still argue that Shippey has made a very valid point. The vast majority of young people no longer take classes in history, mythology, and classical/medieval texts. In the late 1970s, I was in college and, like many others, took a strong and rebellious stand hoping to abolish required humanities courses in the curriculum. Unfortunately, in school after school, we succeeded.

I could cite statistics and polls that would make your hair stand on end as to our deficiencies in the humanities. The home schoolers are a tiny but vibrant group. Yet, for various reasons,--economic, social, intellectual--homeschooling will never be a mass movement. Most children have to rely on institutions for their education, and these institutions have been sorely lacking. The young people themselves are not at fault. They are not responsible for our system of education or our funding priorities.

Perhaps, I'm going to come off sounding like an ancient grouch who runs around yelling "It was better in my day!" Yet there is some truth in that! In the days of yore when I went to college every student was required to take at least a basic course in Western Civilization and in World Literature. It is a very rare school that still has such requirements. The days of a liberal arts education are gone.

You are indeed lucky to be working with young people who have some background in history and myth. But also believe me when I tell you, that this type of background is rare. Yes, there are a fortunate few who come to the humanities via home schooling or their own curiosity. Yet many institutions of education do so very little to help these students. Shame on them!

So I think Shippey has some reason to say that the Tolkiens and Whites, with their amazing grounding in history and myth and ancient literature, are becoming harder to find.

sharon

[ November 12, 2002: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[Keneldil the Polka-dot]

The one truly original element that the Prof created, that is now copied in most fantasy novels, is the Hero as a "small person".

There's a little story about David and Goliath that was written way before Tolkien was born.

The only way to be free of Tokien's influence is to never have read him, and to never have read anything by anyone who did read him. The only way to write original fiction is to never read anyone elses fiction. Maybe you couldn't read anything at all, or even talk to anyone depending on how extreme you want to get with the word "original". No one on earth is truly original. Tolkien's genius was in taking his influences and putting them together in a new way.

Tolkien created a world from made up languages. The basic elements of each were not original. Tolkien was influenced by every language he knew and every word he ever read. But the idea of putting the two pieces together that way was original, as far as I know.

Hmm..I didn't go to the other threads linked to this thread. I hope I'm not repeating anyone.

[Keneldil the Polka-dot]

I just tried to wade through the Rant and the four gazillion pages of "Are you trying to write serious fantasy?" I have never read so much well meant literary snobbery in all my life, mixed in alongside a huge amount of hypocracy with good intentions. Right down the same alley as this thread: critisizing authors for emulating the pinnacle of their art form (JRRT) and then in the next breath complaining because fantasy movies aren't winning Oscars. *sigh* Sorry Estelyn. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] Maybe this post shouldn't be in this thread.

[Birdland]

There's a little story about David and Goliath that was written way before Tolkien was born.

Keneldil - First off, Welcome to the Downs!

Secondly - And when I state this, I am in no way making any kind of judgement call on stories of the Old Testment, or seeking to get into a theological debate. But if you look at the first part of the story of King David, it follows many of the elements that I mentioned above of the classic "Fairy Tale", in that it is the story of a small boy of the common people, who is called on to defeat an opponent, and in doing so earns a higher status and earthly rewards. (He become the King). It is only later in the story of David that we see the High Hero of the Mythic Quest, who struggles against adversity and his own human faults.

David faces no such doubts and trouble at the beginning of the tale. He retains his innocence and his faith. We don't have the young David questioning his destiny, or falling from favor of God, or commiting some grievous error or sin that will change him forever. He is in the beginning, just a plucky shepherd boy with a sling, who steps forward, triumphs, and earns his reward. "And he lived happily ever after" The End.

Of course we know that is not the end, any more than it was "The End" for Bilbo after he returns to the Shire after his adventures. But the Fairy Tale seldom takes us beyond that point.

I'm reminded of a bit of doggerel by one of my favorite "local" authors, James Thurber:

The World is so full of wonderful things,
I'm sure we could all be as happy as Kings.
(...and we all know how happy Kings are.)"

But as I said earlier, Tolkien was the first to blend these two elements, the common hero of the Fairy Tale who goes on the epic Mythical Quest, and suffers some very deep, fundamental changes from it. He also suffers loss, falls from grace, and, eventually, gains redemption.

None of these things happen in the first part of the Story of David. It may happen to him later, but that is another story, about a King, not a shepherd boy.

[ November 13, 2002: Message edited by: Birdland ]

[Gwaihir the Windlord]

I still hold to my original post. Just about all fantasy you read is set in a medieval world, with a hero who goes out to seek enlightenment and/or perform some great essential task. Whether this has got anything to do with Tolkien or not is debatable; but the fact is, it seems pretty damm close. It is impossible to read it without thinking about how much better Tolkien would be, I think anyway... someone mentioned that the only way to enjoy a fantasy novel, is if both you and the author have never read Tolkien. (or something like that.) Good call; very true.

This question is, however, entirely based on how each individual reacts. For instance, as I have already said, I cannot help classing the lesser fantasy work (i.e. all fantasy other than Pullman, Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, Alan Garner and Pratchett -- who isn't really fantasy anyway -- and a few others) as inferior to Tolkien in my mind, and fail to be interested in them because I also class them as rip-offs and, well, lesser. Which I think a lot of them are. Sort of try-hard.

That's just how my mind works with this respect. Maybe I'll get over it some time and start reading more fantasy; maybe not. (I read a lot, but not generally fantasy.) Actually, I don't think I will get over it, because the fantasy I read is of a subtly different kind to the average fantasy books. (Check the authors listed.)

Perhaps everyone else's mind workd differently?

[littlemanpoet]

I confess. *Raises hand in mixture of shame and pride* I am a snob and a hypocrite. Who ain't in one field or another? Now that that's out of the way, I still agree with Gwaihir by and large.

Child: I still see at least one problem with your support of Shippey's position, which I admittedly am getting second-hand from you. Whereas home-schooling is a minority development amid the educational world, it only overlaps with the minority of youngsters, and oldsters, who aspire to write good fantasy. The latter are an even smaller eclectic bunch of quirky, eccentric and erudite folk. To denounce the entire educational system of our own time seems to overlook the reality that the kinds of people who aspire to write fantasy are precisely the kind who are going to go out of their way to become familiar with mythology, the subjects of the humanities, and much else that more practically leaning folks won't bother with. And the internet makes the old documents readily accessible to these aspiring writers of fantasy - and just happens to make it a lot easier to find each other and encourage each other in becoming better and the craft. So whereas I agree that the golden days of the liberal arts in formal education are behind us, I believe that the new modes of communication available to those who aspire, more than make up for the lack. Hmm - Dungeons and Dragons may have a good influence on this knowledge base, too, derived and second-hand as it is.

I wouldn't mind having "snob" and "hypocrite" delineated or illustrated a little bit - it might help us to clarify our beliefs, thinking, and arguments.

[littlemanpoet]

Oh! I almost forgot. Nar one of our Downs friends, has posited two different types of fantasy: transition and immersion. Immersion is the kind where you are in a world other than ours from the get-go. Transition is the kind where you start in current Earth time and move into another world, be it Faerie, a different planet, place, time, what have you. It is NOT the case that ALL fantasy is immersion.

Stephen Lawhead's Albion series is transtional. Pullman uses both. Tolkien, of course, is immersion, but started writing the whole thing as a transitional time-travel story.

[Keneldil the Polka-dot]

Secondly - And when I state this, I am in no way making any kind of judgment call on stories of the Old Testament, or seeking to get into a theological debate.

Thanks for the welcome Birdland. I also am not trying to start any sort of theological debate. I cited David and Goliath purely from the viewpoint of it as a story, apart from any religious beliefs. I apologize if I was unclear with my intent.

I may have quoted you a bit out of context Birdland. I re-read your post with your subsequent amplification your idea. I think we are arguing the same point.

But as I said earlier, Tolkien was the first to blend these two elements

And if I may be allowed the arrogance of quoting myself [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] :

But the idea of putting the two pieces together that way was original, as far as I know.

It looks to me like we are agreeing on the issue of Tolkien’s true genius being in the way he combined his influences. I have to disagree with your points regarding the story of David.

None of these things happen in the first part of the Story of David. It may happen to him later, but that is another story, about a King, not a shepherd boy.

Your argument holds up only because of the way you divide the story of David. If I were to call David’s life from beginning to end one story (which I think it is) then your elements are there.

Gwaihir, you miss quoted me on this one:

someone mentioned that the only way to enjoy a fantasy novel, is if both you and the author have never read Tolkien.

What I did say was that the only way to WRITE truly original fantasy is to not read Tolkien, or anyone else for that matter. I think it is impossible to avoid being influenced in writing by the things you have read.

I have read JRRT’s stuff more times than I can count starting back when I was in the 4th grade. I am a Tolkienite elitist, and proud of it. However, I still enjoy many different fantasy authors, including Robert Jordan (GASP). I know he is one of the favorite whipping boys in this forum and I risk any chance at credibility when I say I can sit down and enjoy his stuff. Do I think he is as good as Tolkien? NO. But do I think his stuff his useful only when you run out of toilet paper? NO.

That (the Robert Jordan bias) is some of the snobbery I was referring to, Gwaihir. I ran across most of that when I was trying to inflict the “Are you writing serious fantasy?” and the “Kalessin’s Rant” threads on myself. What I saw was a lot of Tolkienites bashing most everything else in written form that makes an attempt at the fantasy genre. I’ll stand in the front row of the Tolkienite apologists, but I won’t say no one else can write something worthwhile. I don’t mind when today’s authors show the influence Tolkien has had on them. Poorly disguised plagiarism aside of course *cough cough Dennis L. McKiernan*. Isn’t imitation the most sincere form of flattery? When I see people saying they won’t read anything else but Tolkien and Tolkien’s buddy C.S. Lewis I think about how many good stories they are missing. How about all the incarnations the Arthurian Legends have gone through? Should T.H. White or Mary Stewart have thrown their ideas in the trash because they were, to a large extent, using someone else’s ideas?

I read sci-fi/fantasy for the pure enjoyment of it, not to be elevated to a more lofty state of consciousness or to attain the next level of oneness with the cosmic unity. That’s not to say I don’t, on rare occasion, have my consciousness expanded by some fiction I have read. People were hacking (in the aforementioned threads) on author’s for not having something important to say (I am trying to refrain from direct quotes to avoid the semblance of my own rant here being aimed at particular people). Didn’t JRRT write his stuff to be read for enjoyment? He denies a message, he denies allegorical connection. Hell, he wrote the stuff for HIMSELF initially, to go along with his invented languages. What purpose do you need to write fiction other than having a story to tell? Leave it up to the individual reader to decide what is worth his/her time.

Or, in the end, is it us - the readers - that make it what it is? After all, we're the ones who keep publishers in business.

This is the truest statement I found in all of the Kalessin’s Rant thread. Well, in all of the portion I made myself read. He asked the question and gave the answer right in the initial post. It answers why JRRT is emulated in “formulaic fiction”, it answer’s why Robert Jordan has sold enough books to blanket the earth even though his content (in later work) is sometimes lacking. By extension it answers why The Lord of the Rings (movie) didn’t take home as many Oscars as some people thought it should.

Did the success of LotR give rise to some of the lamest excuses for epic fantasy? What do we have to do to complete the integration of fantasy into the mainstream?

To me those questions could be rephrased into a statement like this: “Please be accepted into the mainstream, but don’t be mainstream.”

The hypocrisy is in wanting fantasy to be mainstream, and then turning around and bashing author’s for using the ideas of the master of their art form. Tolkien’s tools for creating a fantasy story became mainstream. It is hypocritical to bash authors who become popular and make tons of money (read “Robert Jordan”) using Tolkien’s forms. If you don’t like it, don’t read it. But don’t try telling me it has no value.

*wipes brow* That is a long post. Hopefully someone can find something worthwhile in all that verbiage. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[littlemanpoet]

Keneldil: At least you have the courtesy of appropriate disdain for McKiernan. Yet while accusing some of us of snobbery and hypocracy, you adhere to yourself discourtesy and uncharitableness; perhaps you do not understand - I don't know. Having never read any Robert Jordan, I cannot speak intelligently on that. However, Tolkien's work awakened a deep thirst and quenched it; but once the book had been read, the reader casts about for more of the same mead and seeks that unique, bittersweet taste, and does not find it; except by turning back to Tolkien again and again. The thirst is a delight in itself, but only so long as it can be quenched again. Each time a rereading of Tolkien is accomplished, the thirst awakens all over again, and the reader tries different heady meads and wines and finds them lacking, in one way or another. If, Keneldil, your pallate is less discriminating than that of some of us, so much the better for you. Please do not let that less discriminating pallate lead you to cast aspersions on those of us who, having tasted such delight, cannot stomach imitations that, missing key ingredients, turns our readerly stomachs. Thank you.

[Keneldil the Polka-dot]

littlemanpoet: I see the "Are you writing serious fantasy?" thread was started by you. Apparently you have personally taken offense. I meant no disrespect to you or the intent of your thread. Upon looking back, I should not have included that thread in the "snobbery and hypocracy" statement. I apologize for my mistake. I have not made it through all of the posts, but everyone seems to be talking about their own writing and not condemning published authors for showing their Tolkien influences. I got revved up over some things said in the "Kalessin's Rant" and in "The Tolkien Template" threads and failed to separate your thread from them.

You are mistaking my intent. I felt that some of the IDEAS I read were snobbish and hypocritical. An agressive choice of words, I will grant you that. If you will note I also said "well meant" and "with good intentions". I think people get so passionate and zealous for Tolkien that they allow their feelings to close their minds to other good writing

you adhere to yourself discourtesy and uncharitableness;

You cannot cite anything in my post that was discourteous. Uncharitable perhaps, to the extent that I disagree with some of the things that were said. At most I am guilty of challenging an opinion that is popular in the Barrow-Downs.

If, Keneldil, your pallate is less discriminating than that of some of us, so much the better for you.

I daresay my "pallate" is at least as disciminatory as anyone elses. However, it does appear that my mind is more open than some, and yes that is to my advantage. At the bottom line openmindedness is the point of my argument. There is worthwhile material in the fantasy genre that does not have Tolkien's name on it. Today's authors do not deserve to be so harshly critisized for being influenced by the father of the modern incarnation of their art form.

Please do not let that less discriminating pallate lead you to cast aspersions on those of us who, having tasted such delight, cannot stomach imitations that, missing key ingredients, turns our readerly stomachs.

I cast no aspersions on any person. I cast aspersions on the idea of accepting only one or two writers. Those who express such a narrow view do themselves a disservice, and they do this forum a disservice by perhaps influencing other members to ignore worthwhile works of fantasy fiction by authors other than Tolkien.

[ November 15, 2002: Message edited by: Keneldil the Polka-dot ]

[ November 15, 2002: Message edited by: Keneldil the Polka-dot ]

[littlemanpoet]

Keneldil: You mis-take me, for which I hold you in no offense. I hold LeGuin in very high regard; also Guy Gavriel Kay; and Pullman; Lawhead has some great moments. McKiernan is unbearable; I attempted Katherine Kerr and found her frustrating. The little bit of McCaffery (sp?) I have read I found delightful. Meghan Whalen Turner is a wonderful read. I enjoy them on their own merits, because they stand on their own merits, making no claim to be "in the tradition of Tolkien" or as good as Tolkien, because they don't need to. The Mists of Avalon was breathtaking, though I had problems with the out-and-out paganism when I read it years ago (I probably wouldn't anymore).

I hope you see the distinction I am attempting: Tolkien-parrots versus fantasy genre artists whose writings stand on their own merits. Perhaps Kerr is no Tolkien parrot, yet her choices irked me; perhaps that has little to do with this thread.

I'm not going to belabor the "who is guilty of what offense" thing. I'm more interested in the exchange of ideas and clarification of thoughts and opinions.

Peace! [img]smilies/cool.gif[/img]

[Keneldil the Polka-dot]

I'm more interested in the exchange of ideas and clarification of thoughts and opinions.

Well said, littlemanpoet. I agree. By using the words "you" and "your" toward the end of my last post I gave the incorrect impression I was speaking only to you. After I post this I will edit and correct that. I was trying to address what seems to be a view held by many people.

I have read work by most of the authors you mentioned. While I agree that they stand on their own merits, I do not think they escape the influence of Tolkien. To read Tolkien is to be irrevocably affected by him in any attempt to write in the same genre as he. I think that should be seen as a tribute to Tolkien's literary greatness, not as a failure on the part of today's authors.

I read McKiernan when he first came out in 1985. I was just a kid, even I could see what a "parrot" he was. The only good thing that can be said about that garbage going to print is that it's a perfect example of what not to do with your Tolkien influences.

George R. R. Martin is writing a series called "A Song of Ice and Fire" that I would recommend. You can clearly see Tolkien's influence on him (even in the way he writes his name), but he is no parrot.

[ November 15, 2002: Message edited by: Keneldil the Polka-dot ]

[littlemanpoet]

I think we are in agreement. I don't scorn any authors for being influenced by Tolkien. Would that more were, as long as they don't succumb to the parrot thing.

Thanks for the recommendation.

Raymond Feist was another enjoyable read, though I thought the final ending to his myth was so democratic that it ruined the ending.

Eddings is okay, but I grew tired of him. Right now I'm reading a book called "The Mammoth Book of Fantasy", published in the late 90's. It has about two dozen short stories, and traces the influences of not only Tolkien, but of Robert E. Howard and Lord Dunsany, and H.P. Lovecraft. I had forgotten how wide the vistas are in fantasy. So your point is well taken that there's a lot of good stuff out there that isn't Tolkien. I do agree that if someone has read Tolkien and is going to write fantasy, JRRT's influence will be there.

[Aralaithiel]

I would like to jump back to what Child & littlemanpoet (Been missing me, guys? [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]) were discussing about colleges. Yes, kids are being directed towards very specific degress, and I fear with dire consequences. I noticed the trend 10 years ago (cough, cough [img]smilies/eek.gif[/img] gasp!)as I was graduating from college. No one wanted to take any history, philosophy, or other liberal arts type classes. The content was extremely dry, and the professors, or in some cases poor, unmotivated graduate assistants, would exert no effort in convincing anyone to persue the study of mythology/folklore/history/etc.
There were a few of us, however, who had the privlege of being influenced by those who showed us how magical life was when we also knew of such subjects. But, the majority have chosen to persue their specialized degrees and professions and cast off any learning of the liberal arts.
This casting off is more than likely responsible for the "trash" that some of you are encountering. And, as more college graduates are entering the workforce unable to write a basic sentence in English, then our literature will begin to reflect this sad trend.
It is up to those of us, dare I say "old schoolers", to attempt to reverse this trend.
So, in short, I am proud of littlemanpoet's and Child's efforts to encourage us youngsters to produce writing "worthy" of our biggest influences, no matter who they might be. Anyone is capable of writing an excellent story, and any aid we can provide to them in their endeavor is worth it.

Did any of that make sense, or am I rambling nonsensically? Good thread, Reeded Goat! [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[ November 16, 2002: Message edited by: Aralaithiel ]

[ November 16, 2002: Message edited by: Aralaithiel ]

[Child of the 7th Age]

Aralaithiel,

Thank you for your peceptive post. You have put my own position into words better than I myself could. And I thank you too for your kind words.

Littlemanpoet, I know there are bright lights out there. I've taught some of them in college and dealt with others as a librarian. There are many I see on this board. But you really have to fight and chart your own course to cling to the liberal arts and especially the humanities these days. And colleges are making it very hard for students to get a general humanities background. They are pushed to specialize earlier and earlier in disciplines which have obvious practical applications, and the number of classes they're allowed to take outside their major gets ever smaller. Sadly, the smaller we make our pool of folk who have the historical and literary background, the less likely we are to come upon that rare genius who can be a JRRT.

Shippey was not denying that there are many good writers of fantasy. He was questioning if there would be a towering genius of the ilk of Tolkien any time soon. He said our educational system makes this less likely. I strongly agree with that based on my own experiences as a teacher and librarian. The priorities of this society make it more difficult, particularly for many students trapped in educational institutions that reflect those same values.

sharon

[ November 17, 2002: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[Aiwendil]

I ran across most of that when I was trying to inflict the “Are you writing serious fantasy?” and the “Kalessin’s Rant” threads on myself.

As a participant in it, I feel I must defend the "Kalessin's Rant" thread (even though the reference occurred several days ago). The issue there was this: "Suppose we agree that pretty much the whole fantasy genre is far inferior to Tolkien. Why is this?" Of course, if you don't accept the premise (and it seems that Keneldil does not), the whole question ceases to exist. Naturally, you will find the inquiry pointless and boring if you don't think that the underlying question even exists.

However, I must also say this: the premise is correct. Robert Jordan is not as good as Tolkien. Terry Brooks is not as good as Tolkien. No modern fantasy author is as good as Tolkien. It's nearly impossible to prove that proposition, and I don't expect to have changed anyone's opinion with such a simple statement of fact. Nonetheless, it is fact (within the limits provided by both Descarte and Heisenberg, of course). It is completely valid for a group of people to start with this assumption and move on from there.

I realize I have not really addressed any of the issues with which this thread is concerned with, and I apologize. Carry on.

[Keneldil the Polka-dot]

Suppose we agree that pretty much the whole fantasy genre is far inferior to Tolkien. Why is this?" Of course, if you don't accept the premise (and it seems that Keneldil does not)

You are correct. I do not agree that it is all FAR inferior. Mostly of it far inferior? Yes. Some authors come close? Yes. Trying to write fantasy today after JRRT is like trying to paint churches after Michelangelo. There are plenty of good painters, but a masterpiece is damn difficult, in some ways impossible, to follow.

Naturally, you will find the inquiry pointless and boring

I didn't find the discussion pointless or boring. More like self-righteous and misguided. People blasting published authors who have sold a lot of books. People saying they won't read anything that doesn't have JRRT on the spine or other more obscure authors. Popularity seemed to be equated with garbage. I say self-righteous because I'd venture to guess that most of the people in the Rant haven't published word one, let alone a book that sells, and misguided for reasons I have already posted in this thread.

Robert Jordan is not as good as Tolkien. Terry Brooks is not as good as Tolkien. No modern fantasy author is as good as Tolkien.

However much I may agree with this statement, it is nonetheless an opinion. Not fact.

[Aiwendil]

I didn't find the discussion pointless or boring.

I wasn't really talking directly to you (though of course I was responding to your post). If you had quoted me in full:

Naturally, you will find the inquiry pointless and boring if you don't think that the underlying question even exists.

. . . you would see that I was using "you" in the sense of "one". I wasn't sure at the time whether you thought the question was valid or not; I was merely making the point that the entire discussion is irrelevant if one does not agree with the premise.

People blasting published authors who have sold a lot of books. People saying they won't read anything that doesn't have JRRT on the spine or other more obscure authors.

I don't see anything wrong with this. As for the first, certainly it's acceptable to "blast" an author that one doesn't like. As for the second, I don't recall anyone actually saying that, but it would certainly be a person's right to do so.

Popularity seemed to be equated with garbage.

I don't think so. Tolkien has sold far more copies than any other fantasy author. It's actually the less popular ones that are being equated with garbage. And that relation holds true, for me at least, even within the subset of modern, fully commercial authors. I think Robert Jordan is a lot better than, I don't know, the Hildebrandt brothers (yes, they actually wrote a novel - at least the illustrations were good).

I say self-righteous because I'd venture to guess that most of the people in the Rant haven't published word one, let alone a book that sells,

This should definitely not be the criterion by which we judge a person's right to criticize. First of all, there are of course intermediate variables between the ability to write well and the publication of a "book that sells". The Silmarillion never would have sold if it had been published in 1937 as Tolkien wanted. That's not because it was no good, rather because it was not the sort of thing that sells. For that matter, if Tolkien hadn't published The Hobbit (and that happened merely by chance), would we then judge him ill-qualified to criticize published authors? I think not. And he not only had not published any fiction (excluding The Hobbit); he had, in fact, had a good bit rejected.

Second, even if you omit the above consideration, I think it is perfectly reasonable to criticize a piece of art even if you personally could not have done better. If that were true, it would mean that no one could ever assert that Tolkien is better than Jordan; we would be prohibited from saying things like "the plot of this book is too slow" or "the prose in this section is clumsy", etc.

However much I may agree with this statement, it is nonetheless an opinion. Not fact.

A person can take either of two arguments:

1. Art is entirely subjective. It is therefore impossible to say that a given piece of art is superior to another piece of art. It is therefore impossible to argue that one piece of art is superior to another - in which case, you have to acknowledge that, objectively, all art is equal, and you must simply accept whatever someone says as being true for them. Therefore, you must allow people to think that anything non-Tolkien is garbage (and also allow people to think that Tolkien is garbage) without argument.

2. Art is in some way objective. It is possible for work A to be better than work B. Therefore it is justified to say "Tolkien is better than any other author of fantasy", and to support the argument. The proposition may be true or it may be false, but it is not merely an opinion.

[ December 06, 2002: Message edited by: Aiwendil ]

[Keneldil the Polka-dot]

The issue there was this: "Suppose we agree that pretty much the whole fantasy genre is far inferior to Tolkien. Why is this?" Of course, if you don't accept the premise (and it seems that Keneldil does not), the whole question ceases to exist. Naturally, you will find the inquiry pointless and boring if you don't think that the underlying question even exists.

I wasn’t misunderstanding your use of the word “you”, I was responding as one of those individuals who does not agree with the premise.

As for the first, certainly it's acceptable to "blast" an author that one doesn't like.

I completely agree. Blast away. The First Amendment blah blah blah…….I was not questioning whether it was acceptable. I was questioning the quality of the criticism.

My point about popularity being equated with garbage...now that may have been a poorly formed criticism. It seems popularity is often related to “selling out” and mediocrity just because everyone likes it. It isn’t different enough. I retract that statement as possibly inaccurate in this case.

This should definitely not be the criterion by which we judge a person's right to criticize.

There is no criterion to judge the right to criticize. Everyone has that right. Whether or not the aforementioned criticism will have any credibility depends on how it is constructed. I was not questioning the RIGHT to criticize. I was questioning the QUALITY of the criticism. Anyone on earth can have an opinion, just some are better formed opinions than others. I felt it was self-righteous “Tolkienism” if you will to be hard on authors for being supposed “parrots” of Tolkien.

I did not intend to imply that one needs to be a published author in order to make creditable evaluations on another author’s work. If that is what comes across in my statement I apologize. I simply thought it interesting that someone who has sold thousands of books, and apparently must have some kind of grasp on what it takes to write something other people will like to read, gets castigated by those who, in all likelihood, have far less a clue.

A side note: some of the opinions I refer to may not have come from this thread. Within this thread there are a couple of links to other threads that I checked out.

I see your point, Aiwendil, about the two views of art re: subjective or objective. I guess I just don’t see how criticisms of art can ever be objective (i.e. one being better than another). 2+2 = 4 is objective. “My painting of the Sistine Chapel is better than yours because I used cubism to emphasize the architecture” is not objective to my mind. Anything someone could say about one work of art over another may not apply for someone else.

My whole aim was to refute the idea that there is not a lot of good fantasy fiction out there for people to dig into. Whether or not that was explicitly stated, that was the feeling I got. I saw what looked like a lot of close mindedness in the name of praising Tolkien and it seemed misguided to me. I think JRRT would be proud of the genre he helped to bring into the modern time.

[ November 18, 2002: Message edited by: Keneldil the Polka-dot ]

[Aiwendil]

I wasn’t misunderstanding your use of the word “you”, I was responding as one of those individuals who does not agree with the premise.

Very well.

I was not questioning the RIGHT to criticize. I was questioning the QUALITY of the criticism.

I see. Still, I don't think the quality of the criticism of a published author is necessarily superior to that of anyone else. In fact, in the case where an author is criticizing his or her own work, it is probably less valid.

Anyone on earth can have an opinion, just some are better formed opinions than others. I felt it was self-righteous “Tolkienism” if you will to be hard on authors for being supposed “parrots” of Tolkien.

I have (I think) a well formed opinion that certain authors are, in many ways, "parrots" of Tolkien. I don't see anything self-righteous about that, despite the fact that I have never published a word. I would not suppose that Robert Jordan's appraisal of his own work is superior to mine; it is actually probably inferior, because it is more subjective. And I am sure that there are other published authors who would agree with me - Tom Shippey, for instance.

If that is what comes across in my statement I apologize.

I apologize for misconstruing your argument.

I simply thought it interesting that someone who has sold thousands of books, and apparently must have some kind of grasp on what it takes to write something other people will like to read, gets castigated by those who, in all likelihood, have far less a clue.

But certainly each individual who appraises his work has a better idea than Jordan does of what that individual finds appealing. Suppose person A reads book X by author Z. We can evaluate the situation from two perspectives: 1. The quality of art is entirely subjective. In this case, it is meaningless to say that person A's judgement of book X is either inferior or superior to anyone else's, including author Z's. A knows better than anyone how good book X is to A. Z may have produced X in such a way that it appeals to a great number of people, but this has no bearing on how good it is to A. 2. There is something objective about art. Nonetheless, there is obviously disagreement concerning exactly what makes good art. Thus, each person has his or her own model of "good art" (whether well formulated or not). A reads X. Now, regardless of popular opinion or of the opinion of Z, A must evaluate X according to his or her own theory of art. This theory may be incorrect, but the fact remains that it is A's best estimation of the truth. Therefore, A's opinion concerning X will, and should, be based on A's theory of good art - that is, A's best understanding of what good art is.

guess I just don’t see how criticisms of art can ever be objective (i.e. one being better than another). 2+2 = 4 is objective. “My painting of the Sistine Chapel is better than yours because I used cubism to emphasize the architecture” is not objective to my mind. Anything someone could say about one work of art over another may not apply for someone else.

It's interesting that you take this subjective view. It seems to me that this view contradicts your assertion that one person's criticism can be objectively better than someone else's.

I think a lot of people would agree with you about art being subjective. Here's an extreme example that would convince some people that it is objective: suppose we compare The Iliad with The Cat in the Hat, or the Sistine Chapel with a stick figure I drew when I was five. If you really think that art is subjective, you are compelled to say that in neither case is the former work superior to the latter. If I claim that the stick figure is better than the Sistine Chapel, you can't argue; in fact, you must agree that the stick figure is better, for me. This seems somewhat absurd, though it is actually a workable position. I don't really care which view you subscribe to; the point is, people who think that art is objective do actually have a decent argument.

I think JRRT would be proud of the genre he helped to bring into the modern time.

I think he would be gratified that his work was so influential. I also think, however, that he would have disliked a good deal of it, if not most of it. Nonetheless, I agree that there is some decent modern fantasy.

[Cúdae]

There are many undeniably Tolkien-influenced fantasy novels out there. I've read some that are so close to Tolkien in facts that it is sickening. But then, there are the fantasy novels that are influenced by Tolkien, but not just Tolkien and don't copy Tolkien. For example (I'll use myself so I don't insult anyone) I have written the story of a battle in the universe I am creating. I read Tolkien, so obviously something in the battle is going to mirror something of Tolkien's many battles. But I have also read The Once and Future King, so something from that is going to mirrored. When everything is said and done, I am going to mirror every single battle scene I have ever read in one way or another. On another point, someone who writes a love story is going to, in some way, mirror every love story they have ever read. The same goes for writing style. I have read mostly older books and therefore, my writing style is an older style. Others have read mostly newer books and therefore their writing style is probably going to be more modern sounding. This, though, is just my opinion and I will argue it to the death of me! Why? Because I think it to be true. Look at Tolkien, he mirrored every single bit of mythology and folklore he ever read, heard, or vaguely knew about. Not all of it is obvious, but it is there. In this way, I believe that someone can make something seem entirely orginal. If one chooses to mirror elements from every story, every poem, every epic adventure novel, every play, every musical, every history lesson, every last memory that their grnadmother shared, I believe that they can write something imaginative and original--without being original at all.

[littlemanpoet]

I will leave the discussion of subjective versus objective standards of art criticism to the erudition of Aiwendil and Kenedil (very interesting reading, by the way), and address Araleithiel (Hi!) [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] and Child of the 7th Age aka Sharon regarding the rarity of rare genius. [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] (I highly amused myself with that last phrase.)

Moving on, we have two issues between which you see a ready connection and I don't: the rare achievement and greatness of Tolkien AND the demise of the liberal arts and humanities as the bedrock of American undergraduate education.

Whereas I acknowledge this demise, I have not yet been convinced that it is the reason for the likelihood that Tolkien's greatness will never be achieved again in fantasy.

There are two sides to the issue. On one hand, there was Tolkien himself, as artist, scholar, and all the heart, mind, culture, experience and so on that made him who he was, able to produce the work of great stature that he did. On the other hand, there was the educational system that nurtured his intellectual development. Though the educational system may have been powerful in its influence, it was not alone in making Tolkien the kind of writer that he was.

We will never see the like of Tolkien again, precisely because the milieu in which he became the kind of writer he was, no longer exists. The same could be said of any great achiever, be it Bach in music, Michelangelo in painting, Rodin in sculpture, and so forth.

To continue the point, Bach was not the only towering genius in all of music, however. There came Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms, and Stravinsky. They were giants according to their own times. Just so, whereas there will never be another Tolkien, there will be giants and fantasy, perhaps just as great as Tolkien, who pursue the art in similar veins but in a different enough milieu to stand as tall as him while influenced by him.

Yes, we are witnessing the demise of liberal arts and humanities in the educational system. Truth be told (correct me if I'm wrong, Sharon), the late 19th century and most of the 20th century were unique in that ANY individual, regardless of economic and social background, had the opportunity to become so educated and not pay the price of being a poverty stricken educate. Before that era, one had to be wealthy or noble or it would have been foolish to pursue such endeavors. Now the realities of a highly competitive market of scarce jobs forces the educational system to jettison the temporary luxury of liberal arts for all (it had in large part to do with a glut of baby boomers who became professors, now tenured and likely to live a long time, leaving such opportunities rare for ensuing generations, and so we may see another liberal arts craze with the passing of that generation to retirement).

Back to the point. Whereas there may never be another Tolkien, there will be other giants in fantasy (witness Rowling, no great philologist mind you) just because a different era will be a hot-house for a different kind of giant. It will not look like what Tolkien produced, because it can't - and therefore shouldn't.

[Keneldil the Polka-dot]

It's interesting that you take this subjective view. It seems to me that this view contradicts your assertion that one person's criticism can be objectively better than someone else's.

You take me somewhat out of context. If Michelangelo and a truck driver are looking at a painting, and Mike says "Wow, that is an excellent work of art," but the truck driver just spits and says "Don't look like nuthin' good to me," I would say that each opinion is valid for that person. But I would also say that the quality of Michelangelo’s perspective is probably better than the truck driver's due to his experience with artwork.

I don't think the quality of the criticism of a published author is necessarily superior to that of anyone else. In fact, in the case where an author is criticizing his or her own work, it is probably less valid.

I would agree with you there about the subjectivity of an author regarding his own work. But when an author sells thousands of books, isn’t that the masses telling him he is a good author? I’m saying guys like Jordan know what it takes. If it were complete junk no one would buy it. Tolkien knew what it took. Their books provide tens of thousands of people with entertainment, and that is what they wanted to accomplish when they sent their manuscripts to print. I’m not saying that is ALL they wanted to accomplish. No doubt there are as many reasons as there are authors. Fiction’s main purpose is entertainment, otherwise why read it? Note I did not say “only purpose”.

[Cúdae]

Here's an idea that sprang into my head when I read this:

But I would also say that the quality of Michelangelo’s perspective is probably better than the truck driver's due to his experience with artwork.

Say a fantasy author reads a fantasy novel by a different author. At the same time, a casual reader is reading the same book. This casual reader likes fantasy, but prefers historical fiction. The author says about the book: "It presents an excellent tale of knights in armour, damsels in distress, evil versus good, and it truly shows that love conquers all." The casual reader says about the same book: "It was not interesting. Knights, women, good against evil, it's all been done before."
Now, let's say that both opinions of the book were published in the front when it was sent to the press again. Now, say you have found this book in the bookstore or in your library. You read the summary provided, then the reviews. If you are a writer yourself (whether of fan fiction or original genre-of-choice), I would be inclined to say that you would hold the review of the acclaimed author is higher esteem. If you are not a writer, but an avid reader of fantasy, I would say that you are likely to read both and say, "I'll see for myself." If you are not a writer and not an avid reader, I would say that you would probably give more of your trust to the casual reader's review. So, whose review is more likely to be trusted by the majority of people? Whose review is more likely to be trusted by the people who are familiar with the work of the author? Whose review is more likely to be held as "more valid?"

On another note, I firmly believe that we will see a writer who will be as good as, if not better than, Tolkien. Maybe it will be one of the 'Downers. (Then we will all be able to say, "Hey, I know him/her from a Tolkien forum! Imagine, now he/she will have forums dedicated to his/her work!") This writer, who will emerge, will have to live up to Tolkien--in the eyes of people who love Tolkien's work and in the eyes of people who have never, or have but once heard of Tolkien. This writer will have to be better than Tolkien, or else he (or she) will be "just another Tolkien influenced writer." This writer will have to acheive that perfect balance of being more complete than Tolkien in the background of his universe while leaving plenty open to speculation. It will not be an easy task for this writer, nor will it be an easy task for the die-hard Tolkien fans to accept him. Why? Because they (I should say "we") will have to accept him as a writer influenced by Tolkien who regarded Tolkien as a master, but who surpassed Tolkien.

And on yet another topic, I will offer terrible proof that the arts are slowly being demolished in schools. In my high school this year, funds were cut for all "dead" or "becoming dead" languages. Greek, Gaelic, and ancient Arabic were wiped out of the curriculum completely. Latin was cut back to one year to be taken as an elective only. Tolkien, CS Lewis, TH White, Ray Bradbury, Marion Zimmer Bradley, etc. were all banned from school grounds. The funds for both the art program and drama club were cut back severely. The Writers' Clubs (for Sci-Fi and Fantasy only) were destroyed as they promoted "anti-scientific, witch-craft like, and anti-religious" ideas. The English curriculum had three wonderful books cut straight out of it. They are Romeo and Juliet, Lord of the Flies, and Beowulf. They were cut out because time did not allow for it. The creative writing courses were all but destroyed. All this because the math and science departments needed more money. Now, I have nothing against math and science (I am a future architect, both will be involved in my career), but I hate to see so many artistic programs destroyed or cut back. It cut especially deep when the fantasy writers' group I started was ended. I will not go on into detail about how this will hurt the future if things like this happen all over the world. I'm sure others can draw the conclusions for themselves.

[Aiwendil]

Quoth Keneldil:

You take me somewhat out of context. If Michelangelo and a truck driver are looking at a painting, and Mike says "Wow, that is an excellent work of art," but the truck driver just spits and says "Don't look like nuthin' good to me," I would say that each opinion is valid for that person. But I would also say that the quality of Michelangelo’s perspective is probably better than the truck driver's due to his experience with artwork.

My question, then, is this: what do you mean when you say that "the quality of Michelangelo's perspective is probably better"? Clearly, you do not mean that Michelangelo's answer is closer to the truth, because you claim there is not objective truth. So in the absence of an objective truth, how do you define the "quality" of one's perspective? In what way can one view be better than another?

Is it merely that Michelangelo/the published author knows what will sell well or be critically acclaimed and the truck driver/anyone else doesn't? If that's the case, then a "better" view is only a more popular one - but surely the only distinction between the published author and, say, me, is that the published author is (far) more popular. (Note: I would add that the published author also has superior writing skills, but if you insist that there is no objective measure of the quality of art, then "superior writing skills" is placed in the same situation as a "better" view).

This is not a rhetorical question, and I am sincerely interested to hear your answer. It seems to me that you are trying to walk a very fine line between saying that art is subjective and that it is objective, and in my opinion, that doesn't hold up under scrutiny - but perhaps you have an argument that does.

But when an author sells thousands of books, isn’t that the masses telling him he is a good author?

It's at least a decent number of people telling him or her that, yes. But if you assign any value to this, then you are essentially saying that popularity is what determines how good a work of art is.

If it were complete junk no one would buy it.

Again, though you claim that art is entirely subjective, your language implies an objective value. If art is subjective, there is no such thing as "complete junk". There is also no such thing as "not complete junk" - which means that, regardless of other people's views, I am entirely justified and entirely correct in saying "this is complete junk to me".

Fiction’s main purpose is entertainment, otherwise why read it?

I agree with you entirely on this point.

Spake littlemanpoet:

Yes, we are witnessing the demise of liberal arts and humanities in the educational system.

I'm not sure whether to doubt this or be saddened by it. The fact is, my personal experience has been very different. At my college, every student reads Homer, Herodotus, Aeschylus, Aristophanes, Sophocles, Plato, Aristotle, Vergil, Augustine, Aquinas, Dante, Descarte, Luther, Hobbes . . . the list goes on and on. I guess I'm lucky in that regard. I frankly find it hard to believe that most colleges and high schools have no core curriculum at all.

Teithant Cúdae:

The Writers' Clubs (for Sci-Fi and Fantasy only) were destroyed as they promoted "anti-scientific, witch-craft like, and anti-religious" ideas.

Is this true? If so, it's appalling. The fact that they try to sound reasonable by throwing "anti-scientific" in with "witch-craft like" and "anti-religious" is disgusting. Someone wake me up when the dark ages are over.

[ November 21, 2002: Message edited by: Aiwendil ]

[Keneldil the Polka-dot]

My question, then, is this: what do you mean when you say that "the quality of Michelangelo's perspective is probably better"? Clearly, you do not mean that Michelangelo's answer is closer to the truth, because you claim there is not objective truth. So in the absence of an objective truth, how do you define the "quality" of one's perspective? In what way can one view be better than another?

You are right. I do not mean Michelangelo's answer is closer to the

[Aiwendil]

Alas, your answer seems to have been cut off. I am upping the thread in the hope that you'll repost it.

[The Silver-shod Muse]

Just about all fantasy you read is set in a medieval world, with a hero who goes out to seek enlightenment and/or perform some great essential task. -Gwaihir the Windlord

I won’t even try to date it, but the “great essential task” element is hugely overused among writers of all genres. The book cover summaries are usually terribly pathetic: “Can the Uncommon Hero save the world as he knows it, or will the entire universe fall to Evil Dude?” Oh my, the suspense is terrible. Often what makes this usage so cheap and unfulfilling is that the world itself isn’t one the reader feels particularly necessary for the Hero to save. The Hero’s world never quite becomes our world.

Most readers of Tolkien have felt that painfully gripping power of Middle Earth that compels us to love everything about it, artistically (one must admire the genius behind Ents and Trolls alike) and emotionally (the passing of the Elves, the self-sacrifice of the smallest for the greatest). By the time the story has been told, Middle Earth is ours too, and we can understand why the essential task is essential. It isn’t for the Hero to show what he can do, it’s for the world that the Hero loves.

Perhaps many problems arise from writers trying to create something wholly original, when no art is truly (at its very core) -ReededGoat

Tolkien's genius was in taking his influences and putting them together in a new way. -Keneldil the Polka-dot

The thing to do when you’re filled to the brim with the Tolkien Influence is to go to his sources and generate your own creations. Norse mythology isn’t a bad place to start at all. Really, any mythology is great. It is in mythology that one finds the beginnings of the Truth that makes brilliant fantasy. If I may quote Tolkien:

“Just as speech is invention about objects and ideas, so myth is invention about truth. We have come from God, and inevitably the myths woven by us, though they contain error, will also reflect a splintered fragment of the true light, the eternal truth that is with God. Indeed only by myth-making, only by becoming a ‘sub-creator’ and inventing stories, can Man ascribe to the state of perfection that he knew before the Fall. Our myths may be misguided, but they steer however shakily towards the true harbour.”

“This writer will have to be better than Tolkien, or else he (or she) will be "just another Tolkien influenced writer." It will not be an easy task for this writer, nor will it be an easy task for the die-hard Tolkien fans to accept him. Why? Because they (I should say "we") will have to accept him as a writer influenced by Tolkien who regarded Tolkien as a master, but who surpassed Tolkien.”

That a very commendable sentiment, Cúdae. I’ve seen far too many people here (especially writers, and that’s very disturbing) who say, “Tolkien is the master. No one will ever be as good as him. I’ve read him, so I’m stuck now. I’ll can try to be original, but Tolkien’s genius will always overshadow any work I’ll ever produce.” That’s like telling yourself to not think of elephants. Obviously, by trying so hard to not think of elephants (in this case the elephant is avoiding imitating Tolkien in your writing) you are. Take the benefit, take what you’ve learned and felt from reading Tolkien, and surpass it. Today we have the advantage of seeing all that has come since Tolkien's age. With the proper care and attention, every age should be greater in its perspective than the last. It's our turn now, and it will become whatever we make it.

There is no equaling Tolkien, we’ve seen that thus far in the list of modern fantasy authors, but there is, or will be, surpassing. Surpassing Tolkien's work would be greater flattery than imitation.

“The English curriculum had three wonderful books cut straight out of it. They are Romeo and Juliet, Lord of the Flies, and Beowulf. The Writers' Clubs (for Sci-Fi and Fantasy only) were destroyed as they promoted "anti-scientific, witch-craft like, and anti-religious" ideas.” –Cudae

Beowulf?
My God!
Anti-religious? The fools! Obviously the school board has never read Tolkien.

[ November 24, 2002: Message edited by: The Silver-shod Muse ]

[greyhavener]

littlemanpoet: "Yes, we are witnessing the demise of liberal arts and humanities in the educational system. Truth be told (correct me if I'm wrong, Sharon), the late 19th century and most of the 20th century were unique in that ANY individual, regardless of economic and social background, had the opportunity to become so educated and not pay the price of being a poverty stricken educate."

We have more access to free information today than at any time during history. If a person wants a liberal education he or she can attain one independent of formal college training. Perhaps an education so attained might produce an individual with sufficient motivation to become the next Tolkien or Bach.

Tolkien tinkered with Middle Earth for about sixty years. After the Hobbit was published, it took him fourteen years (I think) to write the Lord of the Rings. And he didn't quit his day job to do it. I think it's a question of whether an individual in our "instant" society is motivated to invest the toil and effort to produce a work as brilliant as LOTR, not whether anyone alive not is capable of it.

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: greyhavener ]