Examples of Impact

[Ainaserkewen]

In almost every review and praise that can be found about Tolkien's world and all of his writings you will find some such phrase "It has changed the way we write and read fantasy."

After hours of searching not only this thread but various search engines web-wide I've failed to come to grips with this statement that everybody makes. I'm sure I believe the impact that LOTR made on the world, on it's art and history, but I can't find examples, real opinions as to why so many people believe this.

It was a milestone for literature in so many ways, but perhaps I've taken this too literally and such things are only said by critics to get across what a wonderful world of ideas it is.

Can anyone help me with examples?

[Evisse the Blue]

One example of this may be the number of fantasy writers that have decided to immitate Tolkien and write about imaginary worlds of their own, that showed a lot of resemblance to Middle Earth.
I'm sure others will come up with more valuable examples.

[radagastly]

The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings virtually invented Fantasy as a modern genre, seperate from Science Fiction (or Scientific Romance, as it was called back then.) There are, of course, other examples of Fantasy that pre-date the invention of Middle Earth, but none were literally set in their own world, but in some aspect of our own, whether it was the planet Mars or Venus of Edgar Rice Burroughs, which was reached from the earth, or Lilliput, reached by ship from England. These involve world-creation, but they are accessable from where we are (in theory, of course!)Also, nothing before it even attempted the level of detail that Tolkien put into his creation. That is, at least in part, what led it to be the fore-runner of the fantasy genre.

I'm afraid I can't give you any more answer than that. Many writers of Fantasy are aware of Tolkien's place in the creation of their genre, and I believe that is the main source of their citing him as such a profound influence. That and the detail with which he imbued his world. Many writers attempt (usually unsuccessfully) to duplicate that level of detail and realistic (or believable) millieu.

I'm sorry. I know you asked for specific examples, and I seem to have none that I can cite at the moment. If I think of any, I will return and post them.

[Essex]

I don't think I'm giving anything away here, but if you haven't read His Dark Materials you won't know what I'm going on about, so skip this post if you think you're going to read it at some stage

Many writers of Fantasy are aware of Tolkien's place in the creation of their genre, and I believe that is the main source of their citing him as such a profound influence.

Yes, Radagastly, and even when some fantasy writers state that Tolkien's work has no real effect on them, they still nick his ideas to use in their books.

E.G. Phillip Pullman has been pretty negative (and I think patronsising) regarding his opinions on Lord of the Rings, but he doesn't mind stealing the end of LOTR (ie the Gray Havens) and using exactly the same idea in the end of his Trilogy.

Sorry, I've got a bee in my bonnet for any fantasy writer who slags LOTR off. Very childish, I know.......

[Celebuial]

I agree about the end of His Dark Materials and would like to point out that most books I've read after LOTR aeem to be copying Tolkien at some point. Some obvious examples are Stephen Donaldson's The Chronicles Of Thomas Covenant, and Rowling's Harry Potter, but even people like Stephen King (see The Dark Tower Books) have been known to 'copy'. Although some books are obvious copies with the Author adding nothing new of their own, others have created their own worlds and languages thanks to Tolkien's inspiration.

[Essex]

Yes, and Stephen King even goes so far to actually mention Frodo and Sam's trek across Mordor, and Cirith Ungol in his Dark Tower series.

[Lalwendë]

It's an interesting question as to exactly what an author has to do to either plagiarise or to emulate Tolkien, and more importantly, to avoid both of these pitfalls. If a book is epic in scale and tone then it seems to be classed as emulation, while if it includes so much as a dwarf or an elf then it is classed as derivative. Ultimately, all works of fantasy, even those which are only tangentially considered fantasy, will now be compared to Tolkien; his work has now become a frightening yardstick against which all other works are judged. I often wonder if more superb works are never written, as good writers are so afraid of being compared in this way?

What distinguishes the good from the bad? And more importantly, the unique from the derivative? And should writers even try to think in this way?

Thinking about what made Tolkien so unique, his linguistic ability was a central factor, but could anyone come close to his near obsessive attention to detail? Would anyone else possess his level of knowledge? If they did then it would also have to be coupled with another rare gift, that of storytelling, and possibly also with the willingness to devote a lifetime to one work. So, it is quite possibly a big mistake for a writer to even attempt to follow in Tolkien's footsteps.

What else separates good from bad? Books which attempt to deal with 'big ideas' rather than, or at least alongside, adventure. This seems to be behind the success of Philip Pullman. Writing for a specific audience has enabled JK Rowling to create something sufficiently original to have spawned its own industry and fan base. And bypassing it all has been Terry Pratchett who has instead gone for humour, underneath which any possible links can be explained as parody - and I hasten to add, I don't think this is wrong in the slightest!

But all of the above have been accused of copying Tolkien, despite their originality. Is it inevitable that any new fantasy or epic works will be compared to Tolkien? The recent Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell was compared to Tolkien but it was only the size of the book which bore any real similarity. Writers were producing mythic, epic and fantasy works before Tolkien, but they are not all influences on him, so why must every work which comes after necessarily be classed as derivative? Are they really derivative? I'm asking this as someone who likes writing and is often afraid of the Tolkien yardstick!

[narfforc]

Without going too deep into this, I think that some of the early writers such as Lord Dunsany, The Brothers Grimm and later Lewis Carrol and Robert E Howard gave an otherworld feeling to their works. The stories of Edger Rice Burroughs(John Carter of Mars series) gave you the feeling that you were off this world. Then you have H.G.Wells and Jules Verne, these stories in their day were of the fantastic, out of this world, the idea that man could go beyond his natural boundaries. What Tolkien did was instead of looking at another writers format or blueprint, he re-invented one that was already there. He took us back to the tradition of the ancient bards, to Beowulf, to The Eddas and The Volsunga Saga, back to The Tuatha de Danaan and Tir-na-nog, to lands of wizards and druids. Tolkien brought us back home to our world, that world drifts at the edge of our memory. We recognize all the things our ancestors held dear, and the things they feared, we see a hope that mankind can be so much more. In the days before Video, Television and Radio, people talked to each other, they told stories, man is a communicator. Our ancient kin told these stories of virtue and vice, inventing Gods, Warriors and Demons to play their parts, these are what we now call Mythology, do you recognize the format. What Tolkien has done in fact is go full circle. I now have rows of books re-telling stories of Arthur, of Cu Chulainn and the heroes of yesteryear. What some of the weak copyists have failed to understand is, it isnt how long and boring you make a series of watered down myth or populating your world with copied (Middle-Earth) peoples that matters, it is how believable it is.


P.S When people are writing fantasy stories, they are not all copying Tolkien, they are doing what we a species has always done, look beyond.......................

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by narfforc

Tolkien brought us back home to our world, that world drifts at the edge of our memory. We recognize all the things our ancestors held dear, and the things they feared, we see a hope that mankind can be so much more.

I think this sums up just why Tolkien's writing does have such a grip on us. It is about a whole other world, yes, but it is one we can recognise. Not only did Tolkien make use of archetypal figures, but he also drew on what he knew himself. He had experienced grief, longing and war, so he writes about these as one who knows what they are like. He also included what he loved, the countryside, poetry and even his ale and tobacco. And then he simply allowed his imagination to conjour up new ideas as he worked. There was little plan, he didn't keep to his deadline (I would say he didn't need to, he already had a job), and he had no market in mind. All this added up to making LotR what it is.

What I'm trying to say is that Tolkien's work is unique. It has had a huge influence, but it is indeed hard to find those concrete examples. There are the works which copy him, and those which deliberately draw on his own influences, we can easily spot those, but what of the rest? I think that his influence is so large, one of the greatest impacts it has had is to make writers do something different, so I'm not that surprised that its hard to find concrete examples.

[Ainaserkewen]

I think this sums up just why Tolkien's writing does have such a grip on us.

Something that is so difficult for most authors of fantasy to do for so many people. Oh course, any particular fantasy novel will catch people's attention, but at a very narrow and specific level. What was most amazing about the world of Middle-Earth is that it is not a narrow fan base nor specific in it's readers. Perhaps that is why if feels so wonderful to read and to be aware of.

Oh course, Tolkien didn't invent Elves, or Dwarves or the idea of another world of magic and warriors. Though he expanded in such a way that no-one ever thought of his stories as just another static Fantasy. Anyone can invent creatures or take old races and give them a third dimension but to solidify them in people's minds as Tolkien did is the real art.

Who knows very much about Dungeons and Dragons? It was based on the LOTR, and it is an example of how so many people are affected by Tolkien's world.

Also, I'm on search for those Downers lucky enough to have lived through the roar of Tolkien fanatics in the 60s and 70s. That phenomenon fascinates me.

[davem]

I wonder if it is simply a matter of creating a complex, believable, secondary world. I find, for example, the 'worlds' created by Hope Mirlees in Lud in the Mist, ER Eddison in The Worm Ouroboros & Mistress of Mistresses, & the numerous secondary worlds of William Moris & George MacDonald (all published pre-Tolkien) to be quite believable while I'm reading the books, but they don't have the 'depth' of Tolkien's works or carry the same sense of 'reality'.

Tolkien stated on numerous occasions that he wasn't 'inventing' but attempting to discover 'what really happened'. I think that's what I feel when I read his writings - that I'm not reading a made up story. Middle earth is the onlySecondary world I've come across that I feel really 'exists' in some way. That's the reason I don't bother much with 'fantasy'.

I have no idea how Tolkien managed to do what he did. I do know that no-one, before or since, has managed to do the same thing as effectively - my opinion, of course. I suppose that might account for my disappointment with the movies. They didn't convey that sense of 'reality' I find in the books.

So, I suppose the 'impact' Tolkien has had on Fantasy is the standard he set. Its an odd thing, & kind of 'anti-evolutionary' in a way - the greatest product of the Fantasy genre was the first to appear, & all the subsequent works in that genre have been attempting to reach it's 'heights'.

[Formendacil]

Comparison.

Tolkien set the benchmark for fantasy writing. And this isn't just my personal opinion. I suggest you look at the reviews for all the other big fantasy writers these days. Of the reviews printed on the books (and this is especially true for the big writers, more than the small ones in my experience), there is nearly always one that refers to Tolkien.

They say things like "Will be the next Tolkien..." "The best thing since Tolkien" "not since Tolkien have we seen" "even better than Tolkien".

Now, I don't know that these sorts of comments are always true, but the nearly inevitable mention of Tolkien in fantasy reviews shows the immense impact that he has had upon the expectations of the genre.

[Ainaserkewen]

Tolkien stated on numerous occasions that he wasn't 'inventing' but attempting to discover 'what really happened'. I think that's what I feel when I read his writings - that I'm not reading a made up story.

So you’re saying that it was like he uncovered a piece of History, another link in the chain. That would explain the success. I suppose that it’s like any major discoveries in human history. For example the stories of the Greeks and the Romans are fascinating to a lot of people, LOTR, though it is fantasy, feels the same as these other stories, more human and much more real.

Now, I don't know that these sorts of comments are always true, but the nearly inevitable mention of Tolkien in fantasy reviews shows the immense impact that he has had upon the expectations of the genre.

Yes, I’ve seen those types of comments as well.

So Tolkien’s world hangs over all aspiring fantasy authors like a mentor and a student. The bar’s been set, the stakes heightened. How about the rest of the world, because we can argue all day long that writers do or do not influence society but what about what happened to the world?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Ainaserkewen

How about the rest of the world, because we can argue all day long that writers do or do not influence society but what about what happened to the world?

I suppose its ironic, but the greatest impact Tolkien will have on the world is through the movies. More people will see the movies than will ever read the books - in the short & medium term at least.

I don't know exactly what that impact will be but there is currently a major research project under way:http://www.lordoftheringsresearch.net/

[Keeper of Dol Guldur]

Tolkien made a lot of people see that just because something was fantasy, didn't mean it couldn't be taken seriously as great literature.

And the best part, he didn't even write it for those reasons! Purely selfish, story-teller readings!

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Tolkien set the benchmark for fantasy writing. And this isn't just my personal opinion. I suggest you look at the reviews for all the other big fantasy writers these days. Of the reviews printed on the books (and this is especially true for the big writers, more than the small ones in my experience), there is nearly always one that refers to Tolkien.

They say things like "Will be the next Tolkien..." "The best thing since Tolkien" "not since Tolkien have we seen" "even better than Tolkien".

Now, I don't know that these sorts of comments are always true, but the nearly inevitable mention of Tolkien in fantasy reviews shows the immense impact that he has had upon the expectations of the genre.

One word: marketing.

I for one, as soon as I see the words 'Tolkien' or 'Lord of the Rings', take immediate notice. So must many other people, and publishers must know that to include those words on the cover of a book will attract interest, even if the context in which they are put is not right. I've grabbed my copies of The Subtle Knife and The Amber Spyglass and both have direct references to Tolkien in their 'blurb', including:

The most ambitious work since Lord of the Rings...
Amanda Craig, The New Statesman

A tour de force of cosmic adventure, far outstripping the many modern imitators of Tolkien, and matching the quality of the master himself.
William Waldegrave, The Week

Move over Tolkien and CS Lewis
William Waldegrave, Daily Telegraph

None of the above are true in my opinion, as Pullman is quite different to Tolkien so should not be compared, but you can see why publishers throw in comments like that, it gets the attention of us Tolkien fans when we are browsing the bookshops. I haven't got much fantasy fiction, but I'd love to know if anyone has any really bad fantasy novels which have blurb comparing them to Tolkien. That would be amusing.

[Nirvana II]

Frank Herbert was influenced by the Professor when he was writing parts of Dune. The language part,for one.