Has Tolkien lost his crown?

[JamesL]

I was going to post this in the Tolkien sub-forum, but then decided that as it is relevant to fantasy as a whole that it should instead be posted here.

Having looked at the nominations so far for SFX magazine's poll to find the best genre authors of all time, I was interested to see that Tolkien's showing wasn't as strong as I had expected. Few readers have nominated him as their number one choice, and many don't even include him at all in their top five.

This of course got me thinking as to why this might be. I wrote a short article about this over at Speculative Horizons, but here's a brief summary of the reasons I came up with:

- The proliferation of outstanding modern works. A Song of Ice and Fire, Malazan Book of the Fallen and The Wheel of Time have shown that if you want exciting, diverse epic fantasy you don't need to resort to reading Lord of the Rings.

- The fact that Tolkien's world-building and vision was not matched by his writing skills. His pacing often leaves a lot to be desired and his characterisation is questionable; we tend to see the characters as small figures against an epic backdrop, rather than up close and in more detail. I would go as far to say that Martin, Erikson, Abercrombie and Lynch to name but a few are superior writers.

- That Tolkien's influence is not as strong as it was. Younger readers coming into the genre are more likely to be directly influenced by Martin and Jordan than Tolkien. These authors are more accessible, there is more of a buzz surrounding them. Sure, this means that indirectly Tolkien will be influencing them, as many modern works are influenced by him, but I think the overall impact on younger readers is less than it was in times past.

Anyway, those are just my thoughts. I'm interested to hear what everyone else has to say!

Perhaps I should add that I think George R. R. Martin surpasses Tolkien in terms of storytelling and writing. Let's face it, as wonderful as Tolkien's world-building was, he never constructed a plot as enthralling as A Storm of Swords, or wrote with as much verve as Martin does. On top of that, Martin has proven his ability in a number of genres and formats.

 

[U-Borat]

Tolkien's still one of my favourite on sentimentality...but in terms of writing...yeah, its clear he's a step behind the Bakker/martin/Eriksons of the current world. (And hell no, Wheel of Time doesn't come anywhere close to the others)

 

[ChrisW]

(And hell no, Wheel of Time doesn't come anywhere close to the others)

Agreed. It's well out in front.

As to the topic, well LotR was good when I read it as a youngster but nearly everything I have read since has been better.

 

[Werthead]

Yes and no. Tolkien blazed a trail that other writers have followed in. Arguably one of the biggest weaknesses of the genre is that the other 'Big Works' that are mentioned as influential are nowhere near as popular as Tolkien (say, Peake's Gormenghast Trilogy and Wolfe's Book of the New Sun) and thus have less influence.

The Silmarillion remains the primary work of fantastical worldbuilding and myth-making achieved in the genre. Nothing else comes even close and given the way the world and publishing work these days, arguably nothing ever will again. However, it is not a character-focused work at all and that makes it extremely unapproachable.

Lord of the Rings is certainly still the most popular epic fantasy around. More than 50 million copies of the book - one-fifth its total lifetime sales - were sold in the last ten years alone, individually beating any other novel aside from the Harry Potter instalments (even the Da Vinci Code hasn't sold that many copies) and outstripping the combined series sales for GRRM, Jordan, Bakker, Kay and Erikson put together. Lord of the Rings is also the most successful paced epic fantasy book I know of: it covers huge events, has lots of detail and characters and a fairly huge, sprawling plot, but brings it all together neatly in 1,100 pages. Most of the other writers mentioned fail to accomplish that and instead let their works bloat over many thousands of pages to arguably no greater success (Erikson and GRRM may be the only exceptions here, possibly Jordan, although not to the extent that he let things slide).

In summary, through the extremely skewed lens of internet message boards, yes, Tolkien probably isn't as influential as he once was. To a much more general audience, he is still king, however, and will be for some time to come.

 

[catsrule1]

I, for one, am glad that Tolkein is no longer the "best". Most reasonable people want their "children" to do better than they did. I would imagine he would be proud of how mature fantasy (heroic or otherwise) has become.

 

[Power to the J]

I agree that Tolkien is not "the best" in my eyes. Martin and ASoIaF has taken that spot for me.

Also, I think that WoT and LotR are about even overall. If WoT ended at 6 or 7 books it'd be higher, because the last few books have left a sour taste in my mouth. Either way, Tolkien isn't as great as some think and it's safe to say that he has definately lost his crown.

 

[KatG]

Tolkein never had the "crown" because he was never really part of the fantasy category market. He was adopted by it and helped expand it. He had no interest in being crowned king of fantasy, and the fantasy fans bemused him, especially when they showed up outside his house. He would have no interest in competing with Martin, Jordan or any of the younger authors reinventing magic kingdoms today, and would have been more interested in comparing his work to his fellow scholarly authors of the early half of the twentieth century, fantasy writers or not.

If you must have a king, the presumption that it be an alternate realm fantasy writer seems pre-emptive. J.K. Rowling and Terry Pratchett have a better shot at it, not just on sales -- they both beat Martin and Jordan there -- but in terms of number of countries in which they are published -- global influence; awareness by young audiences who are influenced by them in their fandom as a gateway author, as Tolkein was; appeal to non-fans in a wider audience; the major influence of their sub-categories (Tolkein still beats Martin in alt realm fantasy on this point; ) acceptance as literary style writers (yes, there is carping about the literary credentials of both, but they're still seen as more literary than Martin; ) impact in other mediums (though Martin's up-coming mini-series may help there, but can he beat Neil Gaiman and Stephen King on that front?) and many other indices. If you go on SFF awards, Martin certainly doesn't win.

If you go on who influenced who in alternate realm fantasy alone, Martin and Jordan are big influences, but so are Michael Moorcock, David Eddings, Tolkein, Glen Cook, Stephen Donaldson, Ursula LeGuin and a host of others. If you open it up to the whole fantasy field, Martin and Jordan become even less influential. And if we really get right down to it, Walt Disney and his minions are probably the most influential on American fantasy writers.

If you're going to have a fantasy league, perhaps you should figure out what the scoring rules are going to be first.

 

[Mithfânion]

I think Werthead made a sensible comment here:

In summary, through the extremely skewed lens of internet message boards, yes, Tolkien probably isn't as influential as he once was. To a much more general audience, he is still king, however, and will be for some time to come.

This is a fact.

Moreso, I'm personally not much impressed by basing this just on a poll done on SFX. I've got to say that from polls done on SFFworld and Westeros, Tolkien is definitly very high up there on the favourite authors list, even for people who have read a great deal of Fantasy. The man is simply a class act.

Looking beyond the world of messageboards, last week the results of a major book poll in the Netherlands came out. Thousands of people had voted for their best book, regardless of genre. In the top 10 we saw Animal Farm, 1984, Brothers Karamazov, The Name of the Rose, The Shipping News by Anne Proulx, a book Marianne Frederikkson, and at the top of the list was:

JRR Tolkien- The Lord of the Rings. By quite some margin, one might add.

Of course, anyone familiar with the BBC Big Read contest done two years ago will know they have a top 200 of favorite books by readers in the UK, and on the no.1 spot is JRR Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings.

There is no overstating the man's popularity. Not even Martin, Jordan, Hobb etc have the brand name and number of fans that Tolkien has.

Have you seen how many Tolkien messageboards have popped up in the last 10 years? There is nothing like it for another author when it comes to quanity. Thousands of people post daily on those forums. Tolkienonline.com, theonering.net, Ringbearer, Council of Elrond, The Barrowdowns, I'm naming these sites just off the top of my hat.

James, in closing I'd like to say that your post is mostly your opinion of Tolkien and how you feel he is surpassed by many authors. Obviously it is in your right to say so, and for me to completely disagree with you on the matter. But you try to put it in broader context of Tolkien's supposed loss of popularity and lesser influence and when looking at the facts, that one just doesn't fly

P.S.

I'm glad you put this in the main Fantasy section.

P.P.S.

I would really not rate Malazan Book of the Fallen or The Wheel of Time as outstanding series, since the first one strikes me as just very clumsy and D&D ish, whereas the second is just too juvenile.

 

[theoneisis]

I think Werthead made a sensible comment here...

Yes. But I agree with your entire post, too. Not sure that's ever happened before. Still, facts is facts.

 

[Werthead]

Tolkein never had the "crown" because he was never really part of the fantasy category market. He was adopted by it and helped expand it. He had no interest in being crowned king of fantasy, and the fantasy fans bemused him, especially when they showed up outside his house. He would have no interest in competing with Martin, Jordan or any of the younger authors reinventing magic kingdoms today, and would have been more interested in comparing his work to his fellow scholarly authors of the early half of the twentieth century, fantasy writers or not.

There's also the fact that the current crop of secondary world fantasies are generally seen as beginning in 1977 with Donaldson and Brooks, four years after Tolkien died, so Tolkien himself probably didn't really see himself as the creator or at least populariser of a subgenre.

acceptance as literary style writers (yes, there is carping about the literary credentials of both, but they're still seen as more literary than Martin; )

Pratchett is, yes, but Rowling? By whom? The point you are reinforcing is that GRRM isn't as well-known outside the genre as he is in it, which certainly makes any claim for him to be the 'king of fantasy' dubious; however in a comparison of author-to-author by people who are aware of both, I do not know anyone who would contend that Rowling is more 'literary' than GRRM. Given Rowling's limited versatility as demonstrated so far (one world, one set of characters, one style of magic and one prose style) the idea does not seem sustainable. Coming back to the question after she has written some different books in different settings may be a better idea.

impact in other mediums (though Martin's up-coming mini-series may help there, but can he beat Neil Gaiman and Stephen King on that front?)

If you mean as mini-series, than yes, since Gaiman's Neverwhere mini-series, although filled with great ideas, was nevertheless a failure. If you mean visual arts altogether, then we have to see if ASoIaF or the long-gestating Fevre Dream movie (if it ever gets made) can match Stardust or Kubrick's The Shining, which is the only King visual adaption I can think of that doesn't suck.

If you go on SFF awards, Martin certainly doesn't win.

I'm a bit confused about this one. GRRM has certainly won more in-genre awards than Pratchett (who has a tendency to withdraw his books when they get nominated for the Hugos and other awards) or Rowling (whose disgraceful behaviour over her Hugo Award win has pretty much ensured she'll never be nominated for that award again, as proven to be the case by Deathly Hallows' total non-appearance on this year's shortlist). He hasn't had as many as Tolkien overall, but again if you step into the genre - so basically going by Hugos, Nebulas and so forth - then he wins out in that arena as well.

Going back to my original point, Tolkien is still ahead of the pack for the simple reason that none of the other authors mentioned, not even Rowling, have sold a quarter-billion copies of just one novel. His name recognition is absolutely sky-high.

 

[Damiynn]

Crowns

Heck I say if were going to give the crown to anybody, dont start it with the man who set the stage, give it to the first man who took it, and I say that was Terry Brooks with both Sword and Elfstones of Shannara, doesnt it still hold the title as the longest book ever as a number one on the bestseller list? and if some one was going to try and steal it I nominate myself with mine, A King's Quest, it probably doesn't have a chance but there s always hope,

 

[NilsDesperandum]

Does the fantasy book exist that owes nothing whatsoever to Tolkein's work?? This is a question and not a statement because I obviously haven't read everything. If, however, the answer is no, then surely no one else can claim the crown. I was drawn into LOTR via the Hobbit when I was about eleven or twelve and I haven't revisited it since my teens, probably because of how good I feel the movies are. I was later impressed massively by Donaldson's Covenant stories but when I felt ready for another epic I ended up feeling let down by TWOT - no matter how much of it there was and how many times the actual words attempted to convey the dramatic nature of the events entailed, it just didn't hook me. I gave up after about book 3 and won't go back. What's worse, it's probably put me off picking up Martin, who is obviously quite highly regarded.
ND

 

[Icarium]

mythfanion, big fail on the malazan book of the fallen... comparing it to wot is just disgraceful... if you dont have the required intellect to comprehend it you shouldnt bash on it for a failure that is yours

 

[JamesL]

There is no overstating the man's popularity. Not even Martin, Jordan, Hobb etc have the brand name and number of fans that Tolkien has.

I'm not suggesting that Tolkien is less popular than he was; it's clear that he is still massively popular, and rightly so. The Lord of the Rings is a wonderful story.

What I am asking is whether readers are changing the way they view his work. For example, many of the alternate-world fantasies that appeared in the 70s and 80s are (rightly) regarded as being little more than Tolkien clones. There was no doubt that Lord of the Rings was the benchmark for epic fantasy and that Tolkien cast a huge shadow over the sub-genre.

These days, I'm not so sure his shadow is as big. I believe the works of Martin, Erikson and Jordan have shown that there are writers out there that can spin an equally good yarn, and deserve to be regarded in their own light. When I think about the works I admire the most, I think of Lord of the Rings for sure, but I also think just as much about other more contemporary authors.

My question is not "Is Tolkien less popular?" because the answer to that is obvious. Instead, I'm asking "Is the shadow he casts over the genre of epic fantasy smaller today than in years past?"

 

[Power to the J]

Does the fantasy book exist that owes nothing whatsoever to Tolkein's work??

Tons. Off the top of my head (popular novels only): The Lies of Locke Lamora, The Name of the Wind, Acadia, Mistborn, A Shadow in Summer, Thunderer, Devices and Desires,[i/i] and Shadowbridge. And all of these have been released in the past couple of years, so...

And, as it's beensaid before, it isn't like Tolkien didn't have his influences.

 

[Werthead]

mythfanion, big fail on the malazan book of the fallen... comparing it to wot is just disgraceful... if you dont have the required intellect to comprehend it you shouldnt bash on it for a failure that is yours

Mith can defend himself, but I have to say that this is an exceptionally poor reply. I disagree with Mith and think that Erikson (and Jordan for that matter) is a much stronger writer than he gives him credit for, but at the same time I am aware of Erikson's faults and know that Mith has given Erikson more than a fair try and concluded the MBF isn't for him. Insulting someone for not having the same tastes as yourself is not really good form. Perhaps finding out why Mith doesn't like MBF and pointing out where you disagree would be more constructive?

These days, I'm not so sure his shadow is as big. I believe the works of Martin, Erikson and Jordan have shown that there are writers out there that can spin an equally good yarn, and deserve to be regarded in their own light. When I think about the works I admire the most, I think of Lord of the Rings for sure, but I also think just as much about other more contemporary authors.

When one of these guys produces a work of the imagination to rival The Silmarillion, which remains unequalled in the genre, I think it will be time to put JRRT in the past and leave him there. Until then, he remains a vital writer in the field.

However, given that Jordan was massively influenced by Tolkien, I'm not sure why he is being set apart from the other, slightly earlier Tolkien-influenced writers. At least it can be said that GRRM was more influenced by real history and Erikson by Cook and Moorcock, but Jordan owes a much larger debt to Tolkien (and Herbert and Mallory amongst others).

My question is not "Is Tolkien less popular?" because the answer to that is obvious. Instead, I'm asking "Is the shadow he casts over the genre of epic fantasy smaller today than in years past?"

I would argue no, because if it was the case his name wouldn't come up, amongst other things, in threads like these

 

[molybdenum]

I've never been a huge Tolkien fan, but as far as losing his crown, you first has to specify which crown. He is without a doubt, the father of modern fantasy, (I know he wasn't the first, but he's the one who really popularized the genre.) I'd say that crown is his to keep, no matter what.

As for being the best fantasy author, some people may still think so. He is definitely in the debate along with Martin, Jordan and Erikson. Personally, though I think all three are write better stories, they also had a chance to tweak what was already there. As I said on the Tolkien-Jordan debate thread, it's much easier to tweak something already created than to create something new entirely. What Tolkien did was so different from most of the writing during that time, that he gets high marks on shear creativity, whereas Jordan especially, but the other authors as well had something to work with. So if you're looking for the best fantasy, I'd say Martin or Erikson or Jordan. If you're looking for beginnings, than Tolkien.

 

[shadow9d9]

IMO, anyone who only writes 3 good books(I didn't like the Hobbit at all) cannot possibly have the "crown." Someone is great after writing with quality over time.. not having a one hit wonder that they wrote throughout their life.

Being the first doesn't make you great.. it just makes you the first.

 

[Psylent]

Having looked at the nominations so far for SFX magazine's poll to find the best genre authors of all time, I was interested to see that Tolkien's showing wasn't as strong as I had expected. Few readers have nominated him as their number one choice, and many don't even include him at all in their top five.

a) SFX tilts a little more towards SF than your average forum. Many of the posts are from SF readers that have little to no interest in fantasy.
b) Tolkien has far more votes than any other fantasy author in the poll. He might have more votes than anybody else but I say a lot of votes for Hamilton and Reynolds so it's possible one of them has more.

- The proliferation of outstanding modern works. A Song of Ice and Fire, Malazan Book of the Fallen and The Wheel of Time have shown that if you want exciting, diverse epic fantasy you don't need to resort to reading Lord of the Rings.

I think things have been pretty good for Epic Fantasy since the turn of the century but I think the prevalence of Tolkien inspired Epic Fantasy is overstated. In general people seem to think that up until the 90s Epic Fantasy was just a bunch of Tolkien clones. It wasn't. There are a lot of books and series from before the 90s that were very different from Tolkien.

That Tolkien's influence is not as strong as it was. Younger readers coming into the genre are more likely to be directly influenced by Martin and Jordan than Tolkien. These authors are more accessible, there is more of a buzz surrounding them. Sure, this means that indirectly Tolkien will be influencing them, as many modern works are influenced by him, but I think the overall impact on younger readers is less than it was in times past.

Yes, I think Tolkien's influence has diminished. Younger readers are not very fond of his writing style and there has been a lot of time for the genre to move away from his work.

 

[Fred Gallney]

Unfortunately, I believe that such entities such as Harry Potter, Wheel of Time, and A Song of Ice and Fire as well as more, are on the verge of claiming Tolkien's throne. When a newbie asks what books he/she should read, usually Lord of the Rings won't pop up on thr list. Why? Because it's not written using a modern style. It's more of a history book, recounting major events in another world, something scholar's and teachers would want to study.

Whereas, Potter, Wheel, and Song and other modern works are full of characterization, and are overall claimed to be easier to read.

I, personally, find it sad that Lord of the Rings is being dethroned by such works as Wheel of Time. While, I dearly like the series, its potential to be a masterpiece failed after The Shadow Rising. Actually, the series failed after Eye of the World, which is the only, true masterpiece in the series.

Many people say that Rings was full of "fat", yet that is but a walk down the hall compared to the amount of fat in the Wheel of Time. Thousands, upon thousands of pages of pure fat compared to twenty pages of fat in Rings. That is, if there must be trash in Rings.

It's quite sad. I want Tolkien's Legend to live on forever, and when its dethroned by works such as Wheel, well, it just doesn't seem right.

Long Live Rings!

Fred