[wastra]

I have read many posts now about Tolkien- and apprently, there are a few of you out there who do not enjoy his works...I'd be interested to know why-

Here's my take on why someone wouldn't like Tolkien:

If you read another fantasy series before Tolkien, you probably did not find his setting to be entirely original. This is easily udnerstandable since all those other similar worlds are carbon copies of Middle Earth. But I can understand that it would seem run-of-the-mill at first glance if you've read a lot of other books first that lifted his ideas. However- this seems to me to be similar to someone saying Ihat the Beatles but love all the millions of clones of them out there...or I hate Led Zeppelin, but loved the 1980s hair bands who copied them... I gotta go with the original

Others do not like his writing style-which is presented as if it is a mythological text rather than a pop-culture book. My argument with this is that pop-fiction has no lasting effect in literature. 99.9% of the fatasy writers today will be forgotten within 20 years- this includes Brooks, Eddings, Goodkind, etc. the Ones remembered will be Jordan, Martin, Donaldson, etc because they wrote in classic styles.

So what are your arguments out there? I'm really interested.

[Cellandros]

First off, for the record, I enjoyed Tolkien's work. It was a nice story, fun to read and had a great 'feel' to it.

I would however, like to bring up a counter-point to your post, and I'll put it as a nice little metaphor:

Do I prefere a horse-drawn carriage as the means of my transportation; or would I choose a mercedes-benz instead? I'll take the benz. Even though the horse-drawn carriage was invented before the benz, I'd much rather have all the nice little advances personal transportation has made over the years, in the form of the benz.

Sure, the mercedes-benz owes alot to the horse-drawn carriage (for without the carriage being invented, the mercedes may have never existed). Certainly the horse-drawn carriage has a nice little romantic feel to it, but I'm still going with the benz.

Point being, that although Tolkien wrote a really nice story, influenced tons of folks, etc; many have come since him, taken from his work, and improved upon it a hundred-fold. This, in my mind, doesn't mean that Tolkien is without merit, or isn't worth reading (because indeed it is very much worth it). What it does mean, is that in the years since his work was published, authors have come along, take themes, ideas and such from LoTR and created stories that I have enjoyed even more.

So my take is, even though it came first, doesn't mean its the best, doesn't mean it can't have its fair share of criticisms. Neither should it be dismissed outright, simply because it is 'old'.

As for who will be remembered over time; that's anyone's guess. I certainly would hope the Eddings is forgotten (so we, as fantasy fans, can wipe that stain off the fantasy genre). I don't know who, if any, of the current writers will be remembered in time. I don't think Jordan will be--I think his only lasting claim to fame will be the length of his books. I feel like Donaldson has already been forgotten by many people (and that's a damn shame!)

[bookfreak13]

Hmmm... I find it interesting that everyone is calling Tolkien the first one who wrote in the fantasy genre. I would have to disagree on that point. Sure, he was one of the first to venture into the field in these times, but there were others who did write fantasy before him. E.R. Eddison wrote his series, which is epic fantasy written is classi style(or very close to it) during the fourties and fifties, around ten years before the Lord of the Rings came out. Sure, the Hobbit was originally written in the 1930s, but it didn't really reach mass market until later. Also, there sre many classic authors that tried their hand in fantasy, among them H.P. Lovecraft in the 20s and the aforementioned E.R. Eddison.
So why does everyone consider Tolkien to be the first?????

[Cellandros]

I think everyone calls Tolkien 'the first' (which I agree he wasn't) simply because he was one of the first who had such a lasting impact on the field.

I don't honestly think that everyone believes he was 'the first' to write a fantasy story (although I'm sure there are a few who think that, and that's a shame), over time he has simply inheritied being the 'father of it all'

[bookfreak13]

Yes, I will agree that Tolkien did make a large impact on fantasy, but really there are some others that have made a huge impact, and were written long before Tolkien. One great example is Sir Thomas Malory and William Caxton. They pulled together all the myths of their day and created L'Mort d'Arthur, the first real King Arthur story. That inspired hundreds of King Arthur tales, and has just as much impact on fantasy as Tolkien did.

[Nytric]

I was one of those people who didn't really enjoy Tolkien (as much as other people). I liked the Hobbit, but when I reached the Two Towers I got bored of his work...I'm not really sure why.

As who will be forgotten, who can say. I only hope quality works will remain to future readers. There seems to be no correlation between quality and popularity though. If you're a true fantasy buff, then you must have heard of Lord Dunsany, even if you have never read any of his works. I'm pretty sure his works have made a huge impact in fantasy. I think they were written in the 19th century.

[wastra]

Of course, Tolkien was not the first fantasy writer. I have always laughed when I heard people say that. He was the creator of the fantasy genre as it is today, however. Middle Earth is, in the simplest terms, the standard by which all other fantasy works are judged.

Now I'm not naive enough to think that everyone out there will love Tolkien as much as I do, nor would I ever fault anyone for not enjoying his work- so please don;t take my posts as criticism. I just want to hear real criticsim of it. Was it his character development? Descriptive writing? The bits of poetry strewn throughout?

Personally, I was drawn to the depth of the world he created. Aside from the major book of the setting, Lord of the Rings, he wrote so many other papers and stories to give life to the world he created that Middle Earth actually seems like a real place. I am fascinated with the way his writings changed over time to fit the mood of the story. The Silmarillion starts out very vague and hazy- as if it were a tale that had been passed down verbally for eons before it was written. As it progresses to more modern times, it becomes more specific and developed until the LotR, where it is an in-depth and 3- dimensional epic.

I noticed Robert Jordan has tried this. He published a reference manual for the WoT series. I think he failed to achieve what Tolkien did, however. His work os NECESSARY to the story in order to keep his 7,344 sub-plots straight. Tolkien's Silmarillion only enhances his work- you don't NEED to read it to enjoy the story, it just makes it that much better to have some background on the world itself.

I've read and enjoyed literally hundreds of other fantasy writers, and I can say good and bad things about many of them. But I have a real problem with writers who take his basic story elements and rehash them over and over (Terry Brooks).

The most important theme from Tolkien that is borrowed over and over again is the epic quest undertaken by the weak to overcome the all-powerful enemy. Frodo and Sam were not great warriors, nor were they powerful magicians. They were simply 2 little guys from a race no one remembered. They were nearly worthless in a fight, had no inherrent powers and abilities to defeat their enemies- only righteousness of purpose.

Sure, there were great knights like Aragorn and powerful Wizards like Gandalf, but their deeds were only peripheral to the greater deeds of the hobbits. This is a very revolutionary thought coming out of and aristocratic England in the early 1900s, quite possibly born out of his own experiences in World War I.

Still, the greatest depth of his works is added by the languages he created to work in them. He was always a linguist at heart, and he had great interest in creating a language of his own as a study in the development of tongues. Tolkien needed a context for these languages, and so Middle Earth was born. It was written both as a scholarly vehicle and as an classic mythological text- something he felt was lacking in English culture (King Arthur was a Welsh legend, the scots, picts, celts, etc all had a wealth of legends and folktales, but not so the English, who were to pragmatic spend time on such subjects).

I think where other authors fail in creating such a believeable world is in the use of magic (and I know most people will wholeheartedly disagree, so feel free). When magic is a mysterious and stange force, it remains an enigma- which it should be at its very heart. In many other writer's works, magic is as common as farming. Worlds revolve around it, are fed by it, and are dependent on it. Then the author expects the readers to accept that the characters should be shocked when they come into contact with it? I don't buy it.

[Cellandros]

First off, kudos to wastra for starting a pretty good topic here, where we can see alot of different people's views on the subject.

I really can't give too much criticism for Tolkien's work (like I said originally, I do like it, I'm just of the opinion that many authors have come along that are much more improved). Hopefully a few people will come in here and give some specific critisisms, I'm interested to see what they are.

I have heard throughout the years that alot of people don't like the poetry and song that is dropped into the story. Personally, I think the bits of poetry and song throught the story is one of the nicest things about his works.

I also agree, somewhat, with your point about magic in novels. However, I would say that I think its the development and foundation of the magic system that is more important that how common or uncommon it is. What seperates out a good fantasy novel from a bad fantasy novel for me, is how the magic system is defined. Magical acts must have rules and consequences for use. Else, anyone who can use magic is a god. When the magic system doens't have appropriate rules/consequences, authors get in trouble real quick--without restrictions, the reader is left wondering 'why didn't the character just magick his way out of the predicament'.

Its also important to show the rules/restricitons/consequences of the system, instead of just state them (and this is where the majority of poor fantasy novels fail). I don't accept, in stories, the old-wizard (ie, the Gandalf clone) refusing to use his magic, and only saying that 'he must conserve his strength', or any of the 50,000 excusses in print for why the powerful wizard won't use magic to fix the problem. The author needs to be clever and show me why the wizard can't use his powers. Show the consequences. Otherwise, I believe its a cop-out by the author because he didn't develop his magic system.

I can accept novels in which magic, and those who can use it are commonplace, if and only if that magic system is well defined, thought-out, and helps add to the development of the world in which the story is set. Having magic systems in a story for the sole purpose of 'winning the final battle', or 'its a fantasy novel so there's got to be magic', however isn't acceptable to me.

The real trick of devloping magic systems, is for the author to have a well-planned system, with logical rules, restrictions, and consequences. Explaining the system to the reader without 'laundry-listing' the rules to the reader, but rather slowly revealing them through actions, and sup-plots that are important to the main story (not just zaney side-adventures for the sole purpose of explaining the system).

Wow! I think I really got off topic here, but I just wanted to add those comments after reading you last post.

[Nytric]

I agree the author should not use magic as an easy means to solve the plot. It is kind of like cheating. A lot of fantasy writers seem to be using this method, maybe due to lack of imagination. An example is C.S. Lewis as Schwab states in his 1992 master's thesis:

'Throughout "Lyonesse", [Jack] Vance carefully avoids a common flaw which ruins many well-intentioned fantasies--direct resolution of conflict through magical agency. C.S. Lewis' "Chronicles of Narnia" serves as a prime example of this over-used and uncreative approach to fantasy. Throughout Lewis' books, the conflicts developed are inevitably resolved at the last moment through magical or supernatural means.'

On the subject of magic systems, Jack Vance was a huge inspiration for the Dungeons and Dragons (D&D) magic system. For those of you unfamiliar with D&D, it involves memorizing magical spells. Once cast, the spell is gone and needs to be rememorized. I first stumbled upon his influence after finishing the game Baldur's Gate (a popular computer role-playing game) which Vance's name was mentioned in the ending credits. After rereading his classic 1950 novel "The Dying Earth", I just realized how much of an influence he was as demonstrated by the following excerpts from the chapter "Turjan of Miir":

'The tomes which held Turjan's sorcery lay on the long table of black skeel or were thrust helter-skelter into shelves. These were volumes compiled by many wizards of the past, untidy folios collected by the Sage, leather-bound librams setting forth the syllables of a hundred powerful spells, so cogent that Turjan's brain could know but four at a time......'

'....What dangers he might meet he could not know, so he selected three spells of general application: the Excellent Prismatic Spray, Phandaal's Mantle of Stealth, and the Spell of the Slow Hour.'

[wastra]

I like this discussion about magic! I've always found that fantasy authors either legitimize their work through their magic elements or kill them.

I think that is one of the best parts of Tolkien- The idea that magic exists, and can be wielded by those with the proper nature and lineage, but in the long run, it corrupts the user when not used in a blessed fashion. Ultimate power ultimately corrupts- a central theme in all Tolkien works.

That is also the first thing that drew me to George R.R. Martin's Song of Ice and Fire. The first book was pretty much magic free. Not that I dislike magic- but it was refressing to read a fantasy novel in that revolves around different themes- politics, history, lineage, honor- but not magic. The second book brought magic into the plot, but it remains something that is not the central theme. When magic is used in a restrained fashion like this, it makes its impact all that much more important in the story. If everyone in Martin's books had the same access to magic, it would not be as terrifying and pivitol as it is when only one faction can use it.

Likewise in Tolkien- the charactes cannot rely on innate or learned powers to save them. Only a few characters in the book have any means of using such power anyway; Glorfindel, Gandalf, Galadriel, but few others. So when Glorfindel uses the pwer within him to drive the Nazgul into the ford of Bruinen, the implications and impact of the act are heightened because of the relative significance of the act. Aragorn did not have the power to siply drive off the Nazgul- he had to use the means available to him: fire and sword.

I find this to be a central failing in Jordan's Wheel of Time. I am a fan of the series, but also notice what i feel to be short-comings. I like the system of magic/one power usage, but it has become all too commonplace in the later books. Not only has Rand learned to harnass his power, but he has become a virtual God in the process. I have little doubts that Jordan is wondering where to take him from here. He is already as powerful if not more so than the foresaken. So where is the conflict here? Other than his descent into madness, rand has already made himself virtual ruler of the world (Seachan aside). But there are now two camps of Aes Sedai, Seanchan, Rand and his power-wielding males, Darkfriends, the Foresaken, and countless wilders throwing around this unstoppable power like water. the result is a definate upheaval, the effect he was no doubt pursuing, but it also serves to cheapen the significance of its use.

And then there's the Terry Brooks formula:
Hero is introduced as scion of lost bloodline.
Hero inherits power/talisman of unbelieveable power, but does not know how to use it.
Hero sets out on quest because it is his duty by birth.
When death is on the line, the power mysteriously starts working to save hime, but he doesn't know how or why.
Hero nearly dies, discovers at the last moment that the power was within himself all along.
Hero defeats bad guy.

Same theme over and over.

I guess we should start another thread about magic systems in novels- seems like there might be an audience for it.