Has Tolkien lost his crown?

[Larry]

*recalls stacks of The Hobbit in his school's storeroom*

I believe in quite a few secondary schools (and universities), Tolkien's writings are part of the curriculum. I myself might use The Hobbit with my students after I finish The Giver in the next couple of weeks.

*shrug*

Just seems people are fighting extra hard to make it seem as though their personal preference is THE correct answer. As with statistics, manipulate them enough and in many cases the desired result shall be found within the stats. Personally, I would note that since there is much more pooh-pahing of Tolkien's selling numbers and other criteria of popularity as opposed to the paucity of any such thing taking place with any other fantasy writer, that this difference in how one goes about defending one's viewpoint is quite revealing.

 

[Physics Knight]

I think just by the rate of growth of this thread, and how big it is already, that Tolkein has not lost it. Of course, there are many crowns, there is no 'the' crown, but he has a crown. He will remain a large influence, whether by copy cats, or by those who try not to be like him (which is still influence). I never personally liked LotR, and came to fantasy before reading it (and when I did my reaction was "This is it?") but there is no denying that he is a giant of the genre.

I have to admit, I too got annoyed by the whole lack of women. Not that I demand that all the women be leaders and great warriors, but it is nice for them to be there and acknowledged. How do orcs and wizards and dwarfs reproduce if there are no females of their species? And I did not find Eowyn that strong. Sure she had her moment of glory, but then she went back to the woman's world afterwards in her proper place. I like my strong women to stay that way.

 

[Mithfânion]

Just seems people are fighting extra hard to make it seem as though their personal preference is THE correct answer

Agreed. Some people have found reading the LoTR to be too hard apparantly, just didn't like it, and now seem intent to dismiss influence and popularity just because it doesn't float their boat.

As with statistics, manipulate them enough and in many cases the desired result shall be found within the stats.

It must be wonderful to live in a world where everything is blurry, surreal, introspective and where nothing is objective and quantifiable. Sort of like the books you like to read Dylan. See how it is creeping into your worldview?

There are no hungry people in the world. There are no dictators. There are no countries at war. There are no sick people. There are no popular books. There are no bestsellers. There is no book of the century. There are no popularity contests that any book has ever won. Those are ll just statistics, just a matter of perspective.

Sigh.

Personally, I would note that since there is much more pooh-pahing of Tolkien's selling numbers and other criteria of popularity as opposed to the paucity of any such thing taking place with any other fantasy writer, that this difference in how one goes about defending one's viewpoint is quite revealing.

Really? So what does it reveal about those people Dylan?

 

[Richard H. Fay]

I didn't say he wasn't still popular, I said his presence and therefore influence on the genre imo from what I observed was fading. I don't deny he has had a big influence on the authors who write fantasy just that it's no longer what it once was. Going forward say 20-100 years I think it will be more of a indirect influence. ie The authors that they sight as influences were influrenced by Tolkien. IMO Tolkien will not have the longeivity of say Dickens. No fantasy author will unless they make it compulsory reading in school.

Um, I recall reading The Hobbit in high school. Granted, my ninth grade teacher was a huge SF&F fan, but The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings are books found frequently on the reading lists of local schools. Being a home educator, that's the sort of thing I pay attention to. So, that means the books had been taught in schools in the 1980s, long before the Jackson movies, and continue to be taught today.

Tolkien has also popped up in various college courses (ENGLISH 318: J. R. R. Tolkien, given ar Rice University in the Spring of 2000; University of Victoria's Tolkien Course, WInter 2008; English 321: Tolkien & Oxford Christianity, Rutgers University; Honolulu Community College's course on Tolkien; Cardiff University's online Tolkien course 2006 & 2007; etc., etc., etc.). Some of these may be one-time offerings, but it does show that certain academics do take Tolkien serously enough to give courses about the man and his works.

I do agree that his direct influence upon writers may fade over time - who among current fantasy writers list Lord Dunsany or George MacDonald as influences? George MacDonald's works influenced both C. S. Lewis and J. R. R. Tolkien, and Dunsany influenced H. P. Lovecraft's "Dunsanian" works. Still, Dunsany and MacDonald may have influence indirectly through authors such as Lovecraft, Tolkien, and Lewis.

Again, I do admit that I have seen a reaction against the so-called "Tolkienesque" fantasy, but just because a recent trend has been to move away from high medieval fantasy doesn't mean that the particular form will go away, or that Tolkien will cease to have a lasting influence. See what the Writer's Digest article about popular fiction says about the epic fantasy:
http://www.writersdigest.com/article/The_Popular_Fiction_Report/

Yes, the movies certainly gave a boost to Tolkien's popularity and a possible renewed interest in epic fantasy, but I don't think his influence was necessarily fading prior to the movies. Just the fact that the three movies were made at the same time (a huge gamble) means something. Tolkien had to have some influence for movies of that scale and scope to be made to begin with.

So, how long do we wait before we say that Tolkien's work will have the longevity of Dickens? It's already been about seventy-one years since the publication of The Hobbit, and fifty-three years since the first part of The Lord of the Rings. Something tells me Tolkien's works won't have a problem making it to one-hundred. I think people will still be reading the books in 2037. Now, that's obviouysly pure speculation, but speculation is a part of speculative fiction.

 

[Larry]

Agreed. Some people have found reading the LoTR to be too hard apparantly, just didn't like it, and now seem intent to dismiss influence and popularity just because it doesn't float their boat.



It must be wonderful to live in a world where everything is blurry, surreal, introspective and where nothing is objective and quantifiable. Sort of like the books you like to read Dylan. See how it is creeping into your worldview?

There are no hungry people in the world. There are no dictators. There are no countries at war. There are no sick people. There are no popular books. There are no bestsellers. There is no book of the century. There are no popularity contests that any book has ever won. Those are ll just statistics, just a matter of perspective.

Sigh.



Really? So what does it reveal about those people Dylan?

Ignoring the non sequitur in the middle, what such a thing reveals is that some people are coming at it from the angle that other people are mistaken in their belief that Tolkien is the "King" or whatnot. This has more than a hint of an implied (albeit "mistaken" in the mind of those arguing against this) consensus regarding the status of Tolkien. There doesn't seem to be an explicit or implied consensus for any other "pretenders to the throne," so while one group is trying to argue that an apparent consensus is wrong, the other group merely has to point out that there isn't an alternate around which any form of consensus has developed.

 

[Richard H. Fay]

Personal preferences, likes and dislikes, and personal influences are indeed different from general influences and general popularity. I'm no great Stephen King fan (liked some of his work, couldn't even get through others), but I don't deny the influence he has had upon the horror genre and popular writing in general. I like H. P. Lovecraft's works, and cite him as a personal influence, but I also realise that some people feel that Lovecraft's works are lacking in emotional resonance. However, Lovecraft and the mythos he created are still influential. I've know of some writers that wrote stories based deliberately upon the Lovecraftian mythos.

I do understand that certain people has a personal dislike for Tolkien's works. They aren't for everybody. However, personal tastes don't necessarily reflect general popularity or general influence.

Also, you can't ignore the influence a writer has had in years past just because the current trend seems to be moving away from that writer's influence. The influence Tolkien has had upon the fantasy genre cannot be ignored, from the development of Dungeons & Dragons and other fantasy-based games to obvious Tolkien-inspired works by Terry Brooks and Dennis L. McKiernan (to name two).

Will Tolkien's works fade into obscurity just because the current batch of fantasy writers might not claim him as an influence upon their own works? I doubt it. They seem too engrained in the literary side of society for that to happen.

I wonder is some of this talk is a reaction to Tolkien's popularity? It's almost akin to the celebrity-bashing that seems so prevelant in today's society. Perhaps there's even a hint of jealousy. I could only hope that my works will still be read seventy-some-odd years after publication, but I know that's unlikely to happen. It would be so easy to be jealous of Tolkien's tremendous impact.

 

[Psylent]

I didn't say he wasn't still popular, I said his presence and therefore influence on the genre imo from what I observed was fading. I don't deny he has had a big influence on the authors who write fantasy just that it's no longer what it once was. Going forward say 20-100 years I think it will be more of a indirect influence. ie The authors that they sight as influences were influrenced by Tolkien. IMO Tolkien will not have the longeivity of say Dickens. No fantasy author will unless they make it compulsory reading in school.

Keep in mind that Dickens wrote some fantasy which is still classic.

Tolkien's influence is virtually inescapable in the genre. Even those authors who are trying to do something different are still clearly influenced by Tolkien. If you are trying to subvert or twist the tropes of the genre than you are responding to Tolkien's influence. Folks like Martin, Erikson, Mieville, and Abercrombie are clearly Tolkien influenced. I don't think I've ever seen a fantasy author interviewed that hadn't read Tolkien. He's the giant in the field and the only person that has any somewhat legitimate claim to taking his crown is J.K. Rowling. Most of the authors mentioned in this thread don't have a prayer of supplanting Tolkien because they are either too long or too genre. Even Rowling will have a tough time due to the length of her series.

 

[DailyAlice]

Rowling hasn't got a prayer. Okay, personal prejudice talking here, but I believe that bubble will burst someday.

 

[KatG]

And I did not find Eowyn that strong. Sure she had her moment of glory, but then she went back to the woman's world afterwards in her proper place. I like my strong women to stay that way.

Right, she went back to her proper place as queen and a leader of peoples. With battle experience and respect from her men and future husband. Just because she learned that her father had a point about those in charge putting their people before their own desires does not mean that Eowyn became weak, dude. Look at the larger geo-political context of Middle Earth.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm delighted that women and men readers want women characters who are portrayed as equal to men, and in fact, now expect it to be there or they're bored. But let's not miss the trees for the forest -- Tolkein wrote great female characters. Even Aragorn's elven princess, though nowhere near as prominent in the book as in the movies, was an impressive figure for her choices and self-resolve. There's just not a lot of female characters in LOTR, and that may create a lack of interest for some, just as Tolkein's style, from the Edwardian age reinterpreting epic mythological poetry, isn't going to thrill some people.

But these things really have little to do with Tolkien's "crown" effect on fantasy fiction. What Lord of the Rings did, and why it did have such an impact on the burgeoning fantasy market, was create a template of how to take the old epics and historical fictions and reinterpret them for modern horrific relevance on a sweeping scale. And our secondary world fantasy writers are still doing that today.

So regardless of whether Tolkien is more or less popular than he was in the 1970's, or how many books he's sold, pre- or post-movies, or how many schools teach his work or how many fantasy writers cite him as a direct influence on their work, Tolkien inadvertently opened up the doorway that Martin et. al. have marched through.

So he's not going away. Whether he will continue to be the measuring stick against which all secondary world fantasies and fantasies in general will be assessed remains to be seen. But, for right now, not only hasn't his ghost been banished, he's not even a ghost yet.


As for Rowling, I’m afraid you have no hope, Daily Alice. Rowling has not only sold more books than any other fiction writer, she has broken every record conceived of what fiction publishing can do. Plus, she’s a YA/children’s writer, which means she will be in print forever. So she’s not going away either.

But Rowling’s influence on adult fantasy writing is negligible. She may be the queen of fiction – not fantasy fiction, not children’s fiction, but fiction itself – but it’s unlikely most adult fantasy writers, category or non-category, are going to try and build off her world, style, themes, etc. She didn’t write the series for adults after all, but for the kids. As for the children’s fantasy writers, they were already doing that sort of thing before Rowling came along and they can’t copy her characters, so it doesn’t really change anything except in the film industry, which has realized that adapting kid fantasy novels means profits. This has certainly helped adult fantasy writers get Hollywood’s attention too, so market influence indirectly perhaps, but not really on the writers themselves.

 

[DailyAlice]

As for Rowling, I’m afraid you have no hope, Daily Alice. Rowling has not only sold more books than any other fiction writer, she has broken every record conceived of what fiction publishing can do. Plus, she’s a YA/children’s writer, which means she will be in print forever. So she’s not going away either.

But Rowling’s influence on adult fantasy writing is negligible. She may be the queen of fiction – not fantasy fiction, not children’s fiction, but fiction itself – but it’s unlikely most adult fantasy writers, category or non-category, are going to try and build off her world, style, themes, etc. She didn’t write the series for adults after all, but for the kids. As for the children’s fantasy writers, they were already doing that sort of thing before Rowling came along and they can’t copy her characters, so it doesn’t really change anything except in the film industry, which has realized that adapting kid fantasy novels means profits. This has certainly helped adult fantasy writers get Hollywood’s attention too, so market influence indirectly perhaps, but not really on the writers themselves.

Actually, I agree with all of this. I know that JK Rowling will hang around for years and that people will read her. I just think that future generations will begin to see through whatever hypnotic spell she cast. Adults won't imitate her, as you said, and the ya fantasies published since the phenomenon, which obviously tried to catch her wave and in certain cases seem to have succeeded somewhat--the Lemony Snicket books, for instance--well, those I've dipped into have left me flat. I tried Mr. Monday by Nix and found myself really surprised at how mechanical the storytelling and clunky the prose was. I'm now pushing through Runemarks by Joanne Harris (Chocolat!) and am finding a similar absence of there there. Maybe it's just me, though I have found genuine magic in children's lit before. (E. Nesbit is a big favorite.)

It's not that these writers are illiterate and it's not that they can't come up with inventive stuff. But writing about weird stuff and writing magically are two different things. But then I wasn't thrilled with HP either.

Let's wait a hundred years and talk.

 

[Takoren]

I find this thread title hilarious.

I agree with all those who state that Tolkien isn't going away, now or ever.

And he certainly isn't going to be supplanted by Robert Jordan, of all people. I love how most of the really vehement anti-Tolkieners on this thread also seem to be major Jordan disciples.

One of these days, fantasy could hit a large rut. At that point, someone may come along and write a novel that completely changes the way people think of fantasy, what they want from it, how they read it, and will inspire millions of other writers to write novels in similar veins.

That person will be the one who steals Tolkien's crown. And I shouldn't even say "steal" because it will be more like "join him with an equal crown." Because I firmly believe that 200 years from now you will still find people saying Tolkien was their primary influence.

Again, it seems that mainly the people saying the opposite are simply people who didn't care for the book. That's fair. Nobody's telling you it has to be your favorite. In fact, you're free to hate it. It doesn't make you a traitor to fantasy or something.

But these people are confusing personal preference for fact. QuickTidal says that Tolkien "lost his crown years ago", but clearly this is not a factual statement but one born of a personal dislike for the book, because many others feel that he is still the remaining king. I love the works of George RR Martin or Robin Hobb, but in neither case am I willing to state that either of them is even close to being the new Father, or Mother, of modern fantasy. You will not find anyone who even has the smallest respect or apprecation for Tolkien who will state that he is not still the Father of modern fantasy. You can even find people who don't like him who will grudgingly admit that he is the first, the benchmark for other fantasy, the man who paved the way for nearly every writer who followed.

Saying "I don't like him, and I know a few others who also don't like him, so therefore he's lost his crown" is one of the most ignorant statements I've ever read.

In sales, Tolkien is king.
In being revered by other writers, Tolkien is king.
In being often-imitated due to being massively respected, Tolkien is king.
In inspiring others to write treatises on his works, Tolkien is king.
In pioneering the way for a genre that might otherwise not exist, Tolkien is king.
In internet threads devoted to discussing his influence, Tolkien is king.

It will take far, far more than just a huge market flooded with well-revered books to make people forget Tolkien.

 

[ChrisW]

And he certainly isn't going to be supplanted by Robert Jordan, of all people. I love how most of the really vehement anti-Tolkieners on this thread also seem to be major Jordan disciples.

I can't recall any really vehement anti-Tolkien comments on this thread. I do recall people offering there opinion on the subject of Tolkiens influrence. You are a bit vehement in your defense of him though. And I also don't recall anyone even remotely claim RJ would supplant him.

So really you're the only fanboi posting in this thread.

 

[Takoren]

And he certainly isn't going to be supplanted by Robert Jordan, of all people. I love how most of the really vehement anti-Tolkieners on this thread also seem to be major Jordan disciples.

I can't recall any really vehement anti-Tolkien comments on this thread. I do recall people offering there opinion on the subject of Tolkiens influrence. You are a bit vehement in your defense of him though. And I also don't recall anyone even remotely claim RJ would supplant him.

So really you're the only fanboi posting in this thread.

You might not have said that RJ would supplant him, but on the Tolkien vs. Jordan thread you and Bond (and molybdenum) were quite adament that Jordan was the superior writer. And here you claim that in 50-100 years Tolkien will be entirely forgotten, or at least more of an indirect influence.

So it seems that you, and others, believe that your personal preference will end up becoming the mass opinion.

And, in the words of Forrest Gump, that's all I got to say about that.

 

[Andols]

You might not have said that RJ would supplant him, but on the Tolkien vs. Jordan thread you and Bond (and molybdenum) were quite adament that Jordan was the superior writer. And here you claim that in 50-100 years Tolkien will be entirely forgotten, or at least more of an indirect influence.

So it seems that you, and others, believe that your personal preference will end up becoming the mass opinion.

And, in the words of Forrest Gump, that's all I got to say about that.

Sometimes I think you can read my mind. It's increasingly frightening.

 

[Bond]

So far we've had a big long thread here about Tolkien and his influence, but no one here has actually explained what this influence consists of. It seems to be taken as given. I came to Tolkien late and have always thought of his work as highly derivative. A good half of what I see people credit him for I see as flat out gross misattribution. Can someone explain what Tolkien did that was so important that he needs to be constantly extolled to the high heavens? Frankly there are others fantasy owes more.

 

[KatG]

Lemony Snickett's books came before Harry Potter, they're written for younger children and are deliberately repetitive and oriented on vocabulary for very specific reasons, plus are imitating/satirizing old Victorian novels. They became massive bestsellers in children's well before the Potter phenomena started. The Snickett books were part of the wave of children's fantasy that ratchetted up sales and laid the groundwork of a growing children's audience for Harry Potter. (Started with R.L. Stine's Goosebumps, then Phillip Pullman's trilogy and Redwall, then Lemony Snickett and Magic Treehouse, then Harry Potter.)

In pioneering the way for a genre that might otherwise not exist, Tolkien is king.

As we've already gone over in this thread, this is historically incorrect. The fantasy category market already had been launched as a spin-off of SF in the 1960's -- and had sort of existed in the magazines since the 1930's -- and would have continued to exist whether Berkley Ace and the Ballantines had published Tolkien in paperback or not. There were numerous SF, horror and children's authors already doing adult fantasy. The success of the Tolkien paperbacks in the U.S. certainly showed that there was a large market for fantasy fiction and that the category could attract "mainstream" readers like SF, but that success was more of a test-run than a sole generator.

Following Tolkien's success in paperback among SFF fans, a lot of books were accused of being Tolkien clones that were not, and this is essentially what has set up the screaming battles over Tolkien's legacy. He was extraordinarily influential among fantasy writers, by their own accounts, and he probably remains so today. But that doesn't mean that other authors weren't deeply influential, or that the secondary world novels should be considered the only focus of fantasy fiction. And it makes a certain amount of sense, some forty years after that event, to wonder and talk about how aware new writers are of Lord of the Rings, and whether the influence that Tolkien had, has become indirect or remains direct for the newest writers.

Bond, I don't know what you think Tolkien is highly derivative of, except perhaps the Ring Cycle, but I and others have pointed out several ways in which he was important in the field, and indeed I just did so in my last post. In making these points, we are not all extolling Tolkien to the high heavens, just not all condemning him to a dustheap. If you feel that he is getting credit where none is due, why don't you elaborate on those instances and we'll see if we agree with you.

 

[Werthead]

Tolkien on the accusations that LotR was in any way based on Wagner:

"Both rings were round and that's about it."

 

[Psylent]

Lemony Snickett's books came before Harry Potter, they're written for younger children and are deliberately repetitive and oriented on vocabulary for very specific reasons, plus are imitating/satirizing old Victorian novels. They became massive bestsellers in children's well before the Potter phenomena started. The Snickett books were part of the wave of children's fantasy that ratchetted up sales and laid the groundwork of a growing children's audience for Harry Potter. (Started with R.L. Stine's Goosebumps, then Phillip Pullman's trilogy and Redwall, then Lemony Snickett and Magic Treehouse, then Harry Potter.)

Harry Potter was already well on its way to blockbuster status when the first Snicket book came out. Snicket's success is more due to J.K. Rowling than her's is to him.

The really interesting question to me is how much of an influence J.K. Rowling had on the supernatural crowd.

 

[ChrisW]

You might not have said that RJ would supplant him, but on the Tolkien vs. Jordan thread you and Bond (and molybdenum) were quite adament that Jordan was the superior writer. And here you claim that in 50-100 years Tolkien will be entirely forgotten, or at least more of an indirect influence.

So it seems that you, and others, believe that your personal preference will end up becoming the mass opinion.

Umm yeah RJ is the superior writer imo. So what? No where from memory have I ever said RJ would be more influrential than Tolkien in the future. I did say in this thread though that I believed NO fantasy author would last the distance. So quit seeing what ya want to read from what I write and actually read. I'm pretty sure I know my own mind better than you.

Oh sorry I forgot. Liking Jordan more than other authors means i'm not qualified to voice my opinion. Forgive me.

 

[KatG]

Harry Potter was already well on its way to blockbuster status when the first Snicket book came out. Snicket's success is more due to J.K. Rowling than her's is to him.

Yes, you're right; I was mistaken. I thought The Bad Beginning came out in 1995, but it was 1999. However, the Snickett books are written for a younger audience, and in story, style, etc., have little in common with Harry Potter. (I never said that Snickett's success influenced Rowling's, but that Snickett was part of the spearhead for the expansion of the children's market -- an expansion that was not entirely due to fantasy fiction, but also to series like The Princess Diaries.) Again, children's authors have been doing these types of stories for some time, so Rowling has not had a large influence on the writing of children's authors, who have numerous traditions to draw from. She has had an impact on how children's fiction is marketed, but claims of copying tend to ignore the history of children's fantasy. (Most recently, I had to explain to my daughter that the film The Seeker that we watched didn't do well in the theaters because it was considered a Harry Potter clone, even though the book it was based on was a bestseller decades before the Potter books.)

The really interesting question to me is how much of an influence J.K. Rowling had on the supernatural crowd.

Virtually none. The big influences for supernatural fantasy could be said to be authors like Anne Rice, Stephen King, Tim Powers, and Laurell K. Hamilton, plus comics/graphic novels like Frank Miller, classics like Dracula, and suspense writers like Elmore Leonard. You will rarely see orphans or wizard schools in supernatural fantasy. Private detectives, cops, vampires, shapeshifters, boozehounds, femme fatales and the like, yes.

Oh and dudes, let's not make the moderators get out their moderator hats, okay? If you can't keep it from getting personal, take it elsewhere.