In my English class, we have been assigned to do a research paper on some form of art (whether it be paintings, sculptures, music, theatre, literature, etc. is up to us).
I decided to based my paper on The Lord of the Rings trilogy and why its massive popularity has been a bad influence on the fantasy genre as a whole.
Since I'm sure all of you have read LotR and at least some have a good backhistory of fantasy novels you've read, I figured you peoplw would be a nice resource for this paper
What I need are some examples of the negative effects that LotR has had on the fantasy genre. Anything you can think of. Note though, that I would rather this NOT become a "Bash LotR" thread. I also need some fairly detailed responses. If there's a particular novel that happens to copy LotR, I would ask that you maybe give a small synopsis of the story and the similarities between it and LotR in case I have not read it.
Also, if you happen to feel that LotR has had a POSITIVE effect on the fantasy genre, by all means speak up and explain. Both viewpoints are welcome.
I am, of course, going to cite at least this forum in my paper. If you, for some reason or another, would like to be cited specifically, just tell me so.
Thank you in advance.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Anything that has the word 'Shannara' in it.
And do your own homework, before anyone else gets to say it Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
I think it's been a tremendously positive influence. It's opened so many people up to fantasy and science fiction who wouldn't normally read it because they think it's weird, geeky, etc. I think it's helped dispell the myth that fantasy books are all bad and helped people realize that it's like any genre - there's good ones and bad ones.
space opera
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
LOTR negatively affects the fantasy novel genre because everything pales in comparison. Tolkien is like the long lost soul mate that none of your future lovers can measure up to. (Ummmm... except for OSC of course).
Posted by jehovoid (Member # 2014) on :
I don't know if citing a forum is the best thing for a research paper. You should find published criticism about LotR and fantasy and base your paper off that. This may be a good starting point to get you in the right direction, but I don't think it would be an acceptable source of information.
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
Wow. You're brand new here, and you've just tried to dump a whole lot of work into our laps.
How about you go first? What detailed references have you found? What synopsis of stories can you give us, in case we haven't read them?
Sounds like you should really be doing this research yourself. If you need honing of ideas, or if you want to know what our opinions of your completed work are, great. But I don't think the point of a research paper is to run to a bunch of strangers and tell them to go research stuff for you.
[ May 07, 2004, 03:18 PM: Message edited by: Ayelar ]
Posted by Sobenz (Member # 6517) on :
quote:And do your own homework, before anyone else gets to say it
Knew it'd come up . The reason I'm asking people instead of looking it up, is that this is more an opinion essay rather than a factual one, and it is really hard to find websites that would hold the information I need. I can find websites with summaries, etc., but how many of them would have the details pointing out the similarities between that novel and LotR? It is much easier and much much more effective just asking people the novels they've read that have elements that they have obviously stolen from Lord of the Rings.
And Space Opera:
I'm really looking more toward what effects LotR has had on authors rather than readers. I realize that LotR opened the fantasy genre for more people to read.
What I need are the books that seem to think that just because LotR was so successful only books that follow the same style or formula can be successful.
Posted by jehovoid (Member # 2014) on :
I have found this one book that is a complete rip-off of LotR. It seems to be set in the same land, and it even uses the same names for characters that you find in LotR. And it's shorter and it's not as well-written. Much more childish. Maybe you've heard of it, it's called The Hobbit.
Okay, just kidding. To be honest, I haven't read any other fantasy novels. Whenever I want to read fantasy, I can just reread LotR.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
LoTR effectively *created* the fantasy genre. Whether that's good or bad, is largely a matter of taste.
Seriously, have you ever read the Sword of Shanarra? I *loved* that book when I was 14. My father told me that if I was going to read fantasy, I needed to read LotR, so I did. I couldn't believe how much Brooks took from Tolkien. Amazing. Off the top of my head, after more than 15 years:
Alanon was Aragorn + Gandalf The protagonist came from peaceful, backwards farming community that didn't know much about the outside world. 1 big bad guy that's trying to destroy the world only 1 thing can destroy bad guy -- 1 magic item magic item must bet taken to big bad guy's home to work As the heroes travel, they pick on diverse people and demihumans on their quest During the last third of the book, much of the action is a big seige on a city that is the last holdout against big bad guy The dark riders/winged riders/flying black manta rays are the top servants of big bad guy The heroes, on the way to the beseiged city, go through a country with an extremely horse-centered culture
That's it for now.
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
Okay, it's not really a very good excuse to say, "I'm coming to you for the easy answers because using Google for my research paper was too hard." I've found plenty of leads for such a topic in 5 minutes with Google, and I'm willing to bet that a trip to my local library would be even more beneficial.
But peevishness aside, it sounds like your topic has a major flaw. It's a research paper, but you've already decided the outcome before you've done a lick of research. How do you know that Tolkien had a negative effect on the fantasty genre? From looking around, a lot of sources seem to think that there wouldn't BE much of a fantasy genre had his books not been so successful.
And your topic is, obviously, way too broad. You have no idea what materials to reference.
Instead, why not restructure your thesis to focus on works that you're already familiar with, or can quickly familiarize yourself with? For instance, "The effects of Tolkien's writings on modern-day fantasy", looking for Tolkien influences in Harry Potter and some other popular fantasy works. That way, if you discover that the "effects" are positive, or negative, or both or neither, you still have a meaty topic to consider.
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
Any negative affect LOTR has on fantasy would be because of the influence it has had on fantasy. If it has had influence on fantasy, then it must be because it was good enough or powerful enough to affect people. The only thing I can think of with LOTR (besides the long prose I never enjoyed) is that so many people *coughs Brooks* have tried to emulate Tolkien. Being copied is not a bad influence--that would speak more about the people sacrificing creativity then the negativeness of LOTR.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
Ayelar has a good point. I think the major flaw in your research model is that eventually you will have to read at least one really crappy fantasy novel. You can't just take our word for it right? I pity the fool who has to read the Shannara series. Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Hmmmmm... I don't think Tolkien's works had any negative effect, but that's just the way I look at things.
Even the tripe that basically copied Tolkien were necessary for the growth and development of the genre. Tolkien, instead of writting a book or paper on myth, gave new life to it.
And it can leap fields... can anyone say "Star Wars"?
Actually, I think one negative thing is the use of old or strange names to give the impression of a world bigger or older than what you know of it.
Tolkien did use this for that very effect, EXCEPT that the world he alluded to WAS fleshed out and he spend his whole life working on it.
Many other works use this trick but do NOT have any clear idea of the past or the world at large...so it fails miserably (at least to those who are well read). Some examples of good work that fail at this are "Earthsea" by Ursula LeGin (sp?) and "Wheel of Time" by Rob Jorden. Well...ok... maybe calling "Wheel of Time" a good work is a stretch...
However some really do hold a candle up to Tolkien. "Babylon 5" was the most resent torch bearer.
Posted by Sobenz (Member # 6517) on :
Maybe I phrased the actual topic wrong. I meant the popularity of Lord of the Rings was bad for the fantasy genre. I agree that LotR is a very well written novel, but the massive popularity it gained completely overwhelmed the fantasy genre and disillusioned authors and publishers to think that only fantasy novels in the vein of LotR would sell.
And its not that I haven't actually had any background. The reason I've chosen this topic is because I have read novels that have elements from LotR and had already come to this conclusion. What I'm trying to find is just a little more evidence to back me up. I didn't ask for anyone to go and look up stuff for me; I only wanted for you to list some novels you could think of off the top of your head that have stolen elements from Tolkien and and maybe some of those elements.
And I haven't ruled out the positive effect argument. I asked for people who feel LotR has had a postive effect to speak up as well as those who believe in the negative effect.
I'm not going in here blind asking for someone to give me their eyes, just coming in with impaired vision asking if maybe someone will lend me a spare pair of glasses.
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
Sobenz - For future reference, never say it's for a paper. Just launch the topic, and if you get stuff to use, bonus.
Otherwise, it's sort of a moral imperative to beat you up and take your lunch money. Plus, as a n00b, you also get your choice between a swirlie, a wedgie, or fifty extremely well-placed monkey bumps.
(Okay, I'm just kidding. You don't get a choice.)
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Here is the problem:
quote:asking people the novels they've read that have elements that they have obviously stolen from Lord of the Rings.
If the reader refuses to acknowledge the time and effort the author put into a piece of work, then it is that reader who suffers. I'm sick and tired of a novel being bad because it has similarities to LOTR. Oooh, it has Tolkien elves! It must be a rip-off and suck!
A novel can suck because it's poorly written. Because the plotline is too simple, or too convoluted, etc. But if the only reason you can think of is that certain fantastical elements are derived from Tolkein's works, then you're selling yourself short.
Just because an author has thought of an idea doesn't mean that idea must be contained in their own work. I'm not talking plagarism. I'm talking about the evolution and experimentation of creativity.
[ May 07, 2004, 04:12 PM: Message edited by: Suneun ]
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Here's another thought... I think the popularity of Tolkien today is actually helping the problem that was going on: The drift from taking the form seriously to stereotypes of the races and characters in the fantasy genre. Such as D&D and the Forgotten Realms books for starters. 60 years ago, the good professor woke people back up to the old north-western European myths...but many in the pop culture world misinterpreted it. The honest detail that PJ gave to the movies I think brought many people back on track.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Telperion, I can say it. "Star Wars" There.
But what's your point. You seem to be saying that star wars is directly influenced by Tolkien.
If so, please elaborate. Back it up, man!
Seriously, I wanna hear what U have to say.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Telperion makes a good point. I would say that D&D is much more to blame for the general low quality of fantasy.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Sure thing potato man!
Star Wars has many of the same themes as Tolkien. Obi Wan and Gandalf for one. Both have mysterious power, both are teachers, both die so that the rest of their party can escape, both come back from the dead.
Both have strange names of people and places and allusions to a world bigger and deeper and older than what the audience first knows about.
Both start out from the same safe farmland of home, find an object that the Enemy is hunting for, both have to run and keep the object from the Enemy, both form a party of allies to help the delivery of the object to the forces of light, both have a big battle between multinational good and monolithic evil where the good is doomed until Evil is cast down into a pit of fire.
Of course Star Wars has many other influences, such as C3PO and R2D2 based off the guys from "The Hidden Fortress", until it becomes unique all by itself. Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
I know that LOTR is not the sole source for the fantasy genre. But I really do believe that without LOTR there would be no such thing as "Fantasy" literature today. There would be legends and myth and fairy tales, and there would probably still be fantastic realism, and there would definitely be Science Fiction. But no Fantasy.
If that's the case, how can you say it has had a negative impact on Fantasy? I don't think you can.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
You're going to have a hard time researching this in any quantifiable way. For one thing, there's been no time to do any studies on the subject.
You could do a variation-- how about the negative effects of neo-paganism on the understanding and interpretations of mythology?
You could use Tolkien for that, if you're clever. . .
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I gotta admit--for all the n00b threads requesting help with homework, this one wins for sheer audacity.
"I also need some fairly detailed responses. If there's a particular novel that happens to copy LotR, I would ask that you maybe give a small synopsis of the story and the similarities between it and LotR in case I have not read it."
[/n00b bash]
I am of the camp that believes Tolkien pretty much created the modern fantasy genre. What might be spoiling the genre are all the half-baked ripoffs. Dennis McKiernan comes to mind. And Terry Brooks. These are more like leeches.
Conversely, George R.R. Martin's work is a good example of an excellently conceived world that does not depend on Tolkien to create reader identification with the different concepts and characters. A Song of Ice and Fire adds tons of strength and quality to the genre without surviving on good Elves, bad Ogres, and innocent Englishmen.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Telperion, look at my name closely. There's an "R" in porteiro. The word means gate-keeper or porter (which is my name). Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
I picked up a copy of Charles Kingsley's The Water Babies on eBay. I purchased the book mainly because of my interest in Anne Anderson's illustrations. It's a 1930's reprint of a book that was first published in 1863.
Anyway, we've got plenty of examples of good fantasy writing that predates Tolkien, including Alice's Adventures in Wonderland , The Sword in the Stone , and such. Granted, nothing good had come along in quite awhile, prompting Tolkien and Lewis to put pen to paper, but any fantasy writer of any merit would surely sink his/her roots deeper than LOTR and Narnia.
[ May 07, 2004, 05:18 PM: Message edited by: skillery ]
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
*taking notes*
Gotcha potato man! er... gate-keeper man! Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Oh yah Porteiro, another thing that is similar are the glowing swords, i.e. the holy Elven-swords and the Jedi Light Sabers. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Tel, I've got to say that I think your Tolkine-Star Wars connection is a stretch. At best.
But I agree that Babylon 5 an excellent recent work that is influenced by Tolkien. The Minbari, while not having many direct correlations, have the same spirit that Tolkien's elves always did to me.
One note of interest: to me the biggest simularity was Gandalf falling down the pit of Kazad-Dum, dying, and then coming back, compared to Sheridan falling down the pit of Zahadum, dying, and coming back. But JMS has stated that to him, there was no conscious connection between the two.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Lucas conscioulsy borrowed archetypes from mythology. You can't do that and not have something from LotR in the work.
Dagonee
Posted by Ben (Member # 6117) on :
Sobenz, i just want to make sure it's clear to you that you are indeed a complete and utter NERD and that you harbor no delusions dismissing this fact.
...this coming from a guy who wrote no less than SEVEN papers on CHASING AMY in freshman english...
shutup.
[ May 07, 2004, 06:49 PM: Message edited by: Ben ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm not sure how you're using the term "ruined." Fantasy as genre fiction, with its stereotypes and tropes, didn't really exist as a codified form UNTIL LotR became popular.
Perhaps that's the problem: LotR was so popular that it codified what "fantasy" meant, and therefore restricted it (for many people) to certain forms. Authors break out of those forms occasionally, but the combination of LotR and, I believe, Dungeons & Dragons helped create what most people expect of fantasy.
If you don't like fantasy because you don't like all the cliches, the EXISTENCE of a genre is in fact a problem.
Posted by Ben (Member # 6117) on :
in fact, that goes for everybody that posted in this thread (save for me of course)
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Tom you hit the nail on the head.
Posted by Sobenz (Member # 6517) on :
quote:Sobenz, i just want to make sure it's clear to you that you are indeed a complete and utter NERD and that you harbor no delusions dismissing this fact.
Of course
quote:If you don't like fantasy because you don't like all the cliches, the EXISTENCE of a genre is in fact a problem.
It's not that I dislike fantasy, just that I think it could be so much better if everybody didn't look at LotR as the sole model for a good fantasy book. I would give anything to read a fantasy novel by someone who has not read LotR and all the subsequent copies.
Again, I'm not saying that LotR is bad or that everything it has done for the fantasy genre is bad, just that its popularity and success has had its fair share of negative influences as well. In the long run. It would make sense if all the fantasy novels in the 50s had all these Tolkien-esque elements in them. But now, half a century later, we should have evolved beyond that. Some author should have done something truly original that not all fantasy novels written in the new millenium had a big line connecting them to LotR and LotR only in the fantasy novel family tree.
The Lord of the Rings should have had some real competition by now. Great for Tolkien that he's such a wonderful author, but bad for the readers who have to read another "peasant boy goes on epic quest to destroy the One Ring/Sword/Lamp/Napkin/Soda Bottle that keeps the Dark Lord/Ruler/Munchkin alive and powerful" story.
I'll admit that I really haven't read all that many fantasy novels in completion, but that is solely because nearly every one was just a revisionist Middle-Earth.
[ May 07, 2004, 07:49 PM: Message edited by: Sobenz ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Actually, one of the biggest problems with the fantasy novel is that hardly any are written anymore. At least, not stand-alone novels. The invention of the never-ending series (*cough* Jordan) has done nothing to help out the fantasy genre.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
quote:Great for Tolkien that he's such a wonderful author, but bad for the readers who have to read another "peasant boy goes on epic quest to destroy the One Ring/Sword/Lamp/Napkin/Soda Bottle that keeps the Dark Lord/Ruler/Munchkin
I'd like to point out that Tolkien is CERTAINLY not the first author to choose such a plotline. Mythology plays an important role. If you want examples, people better versed than I, or books at your library, would be helpful in this regard.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Is West Side Story a bad book because of its obvious parallel to Romeo and Juliet?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
The fantasy genre definitely existed before Lord of the Rings. Look at things ranging from Alice in Wonderland to Mother Goose stories to Gulliver's Travels to Animal Farm. The problem with the Lord of the Rings is that it has inadvertantly tricked people into limiting what is possible inside the fantasy genre, by creating a model that future writers felt compelled to follow. It redefined the parameters of the fantasy genre, at least for many authors.
The biggest part of this problem is that the popular interpretation of the Lord of the Rings has changed the goal of fantasy from using imaginary worlds to illustrate ideas and characters to using imaginary worlds as an end in themselves. Traditionally, fantasy gave us moral lessons or insight into our own real lives by contrasting it with things going on in fantasy worlds. But since the Lord of the Rings, there have been many many books in which the goal is simply world-building - to create some interesting world. Thus fantasy, to some degree, has become an ends instead of the means. This leads to less powerful books, IMHO.
Ironically, I don't even think the Lord of the Rings fits the model people have taken from it. Its primary value is not in the world it created, but in the story it tells. Fans and writers within the genre, though, have gotten carried away with the world-building aspect of the story and lost sight of what really makes it great. I think that is the source of the problem with authors who try to imitate the Lord of the Rings: They see it as a book about fantasy worlds, rather than a book about character.
[ May 07, 2004, 08:08 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
Sobenz... The biggest negative effect that LotR has had on the Fantasy genre, is that too many people try to write like Tolkien.
LotR is written in Third Person Omniscient, which is very, very difficult to do well. And by 'well' I mean 'Not-putting-the-reader-into-a-boredom-induced-coma'. More common in popular lit (for many reasons, some goood, some bad) is a more focussed Point Of View, usually from the POV of one character, or, at least, one character at a time (with clear separations between differing POV sections).
The second negative effect is the insertion of made-up words, which authors pass off as part of a language. Tolkien was a linguist. He invented about 13 languages entirely out of his brain, complete with their own grammar rules and so forth. But he makes it look easy, so people try to 'make up' their own languages for new fantasy stories. That is a huge mistake, in most cases. Especially when you can tell the writer hardly knows what a verb is (okay, okay, that's the copy-editor in me griping about trying to 'fix' a crappy novel for somebodybefore they inflict it on a publisher. I should have asked for more money )
But still.
Multi-lingual Oxford proffessor makes up a language for his Fantasy story = Good
Teenager in love with Orlando Bloom makes up a language for a Fantasy novel = *shudder*
But let's not forget that there wouldn't BE a "Fantasy Genre" without LotR, since that is what people think of as typical of that 'genre'. A story with fantastical elements is often NOT a Fantasy story, because of that. Things that might have once been called 'fantasy' are now called 'magical realism' 'fairy tales' or even *gasp* 'literary.
[ May 07, 2004, 08:10 PM: Message edited by: Olivetta ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Look at Wagners Ring Cycle for an example of that plot being used before Tolkien.
[ May 07, 2004, 08:32 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: The fantasy genre definitely existed before Lord of the Rings. Look at things ranging from Alice in Wonderland to Mother Goose stories to Gulliver's Travels to Animal Farm.
These examples show why it *was* Tolkien that started the Fantasy Novel Genre. Alice in Wonderland was intended for Children. Gulliver's Travels was a satire, and Animal Farm an aligory. Tolkein was the first to write fantasy for it's own sake for adults. As opposed to alegories and satires, the story existed for the sake of the story, instead of as a vehicle for an agenda.
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
quote:Some author should have done something truly original that not all fantasy novels written in the new millenium had a big line connecting them to LotR and LotR only in the fantasy novel family tree.
The Lord of the Rings should have had some real competition by now. Great for Tolkien that he's such a wonderful author, but bad for the readers who have to read another "peasant boy goes on epic quest to destroy the One Ring/Sword/Lamp/Napkin/Soda Bottle that keeps the Dark Lord/Ruler/Munchkin alive and powerful" story.
And this observed/opinioned lack of talent in fantasy following LOTR is LOTR fault/responsibility how?
Posted by Sobenz (Member # 6517) on :
About One Thing Story:
Whether LotR was the first to use that kind of storyline or not is irrelevant. The point is most of the fantasy authors of today are using that kind of story not because it has tons of history in mythology, but because LotR is incredibly popular and the authors can't imagine the possibility that maybe not all fantasy novels have to follow that pattern. If LotR had not been as popular as it was, the fantasy novels of today would not be so saturated with that storyline; most of them would probably have more original ideas (and before anyone says it, yes I realize that fantasy novels would not be as popular or mainstream if it were not for LotR, but there would be fantasy of some kind).
I would have had LotR not as popular as it is, and have it as a 50 year old novel that is still good even when compared to today's newest and greatest fantasy novels rather than the one excellent novel that has stood as the representative of fantasy just because nobody else can figure out an original idea from a blatant rip off.
Alexa:
I'm not saying its LotR's fault. I'm not trying to point blame at LotR for "ruining the fantasy genre," I'm trying to write about how the popularity of LotR, NOT the books themselves but the massive popularity they have received, has had negative effect on fantasy and what, exactly, that effect has been. NOT that LotR is a horrible book for ruining fantasy; NOT that Tolkien is a bad writer; NOT that LotR hasn't had a positive effect on fantasy. Just that the popularity of LotR has caused the fantasy genre to become stale.
mr_porteiro_head:
Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass were not intended for children...not just children anyway. They were both very stylized English political essays. They've just lost meaning now a century later.
Amd the targeted audience or intent of a novel or story has nothing to do with whether it is fantasy or not. LotR may have created the swords and sorcery fantasy, but it did not create fantasy as a whole.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
then I will discredit this statement:
quote:most of the fantasy authors of today are using that kind of story not because it has tons of history in mythology, but because LotR is incredibly popular and the authors can't imagine the possibility that maybe not all fantasy novels have to follow that pattern
Good God, Man! How much fantasy have you read? Sure, I can name a few stories that follow the basic plotline of "boy destroys evil" but here are many others:
Take a Thief - Mercedes Lackey. Novel revolves around an orphan who is an expert roof-walker. He is "chosen" to be a part of the country's law-enforcers (loose description) and finds out what it means to belong to a cause greater than surviving.
Test of the Twins Trilogy - Weis and Hickman. Ultimately revolves around the relationship between a man and the brother he can't understand. The brother strives for Godhood, ruthlessly trying to force his way there no matter who is harmed.
Mists of Avalon - Bradley. Takes the Arthurian Legend, but looks at it from a different angle. Often seen as "feminist fantasy," the novel focuses on the struggles of spiritual people to retain power and influence in a changing world.
Daggerspell - Kerr. One character remains alive to watch countless reincarnations of his friends subconsciously learn from their past mistakes as he works to correct his own.
Those are just a handful I thought of off the top of my head. The genre isn't suffering from this re-hashing the plot. You're just reading the wrong books.
Posted by Sobenz (Member # 6517) on :
I'll admit that I haven't read a whole ton of fantasy books and that the one's I have read could very easily be the wrong ones. It's not one of my prouder aspects, but I have a really hard time reading (or watching/listening/etc.) a book (movie/CD/etc.) without already knowing a bit about what is in it and what it's about, etc.
Movies have reviews all over the place and CDs have the radio, but books don't have readily accessible reviews or previews (at least not as movies and other forms of entertainment) so I normally end up reading only the popular books. In the case of fantasy, those tend to be the LotR styled novels.
Part of the reason I signed up here *shrugs*
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:These examples show why it *was* Tolkien that started the Fantasy Novel Genre. Alice in Wonderland was intended for Children. Gulliver's Travels was a satire, and Animal Farm an aligory. Tolkein was the first to write fantasy for it's own sake for adults. As opposed to alegories and satires, the story existed for the sake of the story, instead of as a vehicle for an agenda.
No, that is precisely HOW the Lord of the Rings damaged fantasy. Fantasy for it's own sake just isn't that good.
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
I think he pretty much admitted he hasn't read many books, didn't he? (Hah! Took too long to write my post! Yeah, what he said! )
I think for research for this paper I assign him to read the Earthsea series by Ursula K. Leguin, for starters, maybe the Hyperion series by Dan Simmons? Y'all think of the others we have to assign him. I'm not that big a fantasy fan. I really prefer science fiction.
[ May 07, 2004, 11:53 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posted by solo (Member # 3148) on :
You might want to take a look at China Mievilles website. He has a few comments on Tolkein in his debate on Science Fiction vs. Fantasy here Posted by Kamisaki (Member # 6309) on :
As long as we're suggesting fantasy required reading, I just wanted to say A Song of Ice and Fire should definitely be on that list. I think someone mentioned it once before but it's good enough to say it again.
Not only is it different from every other fantasy book/series I've ever read, it's quite a bit different from every other book I've read, too.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
I love Ursula.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
You want a good character driven fantasy story? Check out Jean Rabe's Dhamon Grimwulf books. It's basically "let's see how many times Dhamon can be evil and still redeem himself".
They're: Dawning of a New Age Day of the Tempest Eve ofthe Maelstrom
and Downfall Betrayal Redemption Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Well, this is a different thread.....
Sort of....
I think Tolkien has been wonderful for writing in general. He was very surprised that his works became cult classics, and then classics in their own rights, and was astounded by his newfound wealth. Once publishers realized that the public would be interested in these types of stories they began requesting more of them, and the market responded.
The problem of "writing by the numbers" existed long before Tolkien ever put pen to paper. People have been copying popular works for centuries; how many Count of Monte Cristo clones have there been?
You could go as far as to say that all stories are clones of each other, as they all follow the same basic pattern described by Joseph Campbell in Hero of a Thousand Faces (which if you do write this paper should be required non-fiction reading for you) but that wouldn't be true, because how you get from point a to point b is as important to a story as the trip itself.
Brooks stole from Tolkien, (although not as bad as McKeiarnen did for his books---they were shameless, as the author admits) as Tolkien took from old myths and legends.....what matters is what they did with the material. They both created intertaining stories and characters, and while Brooks may have ( ok, he did...no argument from me...lol) gotten the concepts from Tolkien, he has taken them to places that are unique to him.
Guy Gavriel Kay is oneof my favorite authors, but his first writing gig was working for Chris Tolkien revamping the Silmarillion for publication. Anyone who has read Kay can see that he was greatly influnced by Tolkien, but he writes in a style all his own, and bases his stories on historical time periods, and then warps them into his own worlds, an appproach very different from Tolkien. He has taken from Tolkien, but made it his own.
BTW, Suneun, I love the fact that you have read so much fantasy....where were you when I was 20? Oh yeah, you were still in diapers....nevermind....
My wife and I went to see LOTR for our first date, and she likes it almost as much as I do. She reads a lot, but not as much as I do, and she doesn't care for a lot of fantasy, but LOTR impressed her years ago. I guess that is what impressed me so much about it, that it appeals to a greater audience than most books.
You really should read some Campbell, Sob, as it is a great non-fiction reference for this type of discussion/paper.
Kwea
[ May 08, 2004, 11:10 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Sob,
You also pretty much have to read Tolkien's "On Faerie Stories" to understand the differency between fantastical literature (Animal Farm) and fantasy, at least under Tolkien's theories. Even people who disagree with his analysis and definitions have to take into account.
You can't very well talk about fantasy if you don't have a clear definition.
Dagonee
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
Kwea,
For the life of me, I can't recall where Mel might have stolen from Tolkien?
fallow
Posted by Sobenz (Member # 6517) on :
I think Kwea was referring to Terry Brooks, not Mel Brooks Posted by Livious (Member # 2326) on :
The biggest harm LotR did to the fantasy genre (assuming there'd be such a thing without it) was causing many readers to associate fantasy with names they can't remember, tedious detail, and an annoying tendency to break into poetry. As a result they're discouraged from picking up something by, say, Martin or Pratchett that they'd actually enjoy.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Pratchett would still be writing without LOTR, but he wouldn't be making much money at it, providing he could even find a buyer.
However, Martin would have never even entered the field, because he only entered the genre to profit from it. I love his series, but he had been writing for years without releasing any fantasy novels of note until recently. He made his mark in Sci/Fi, not fantasy, and the only reason fantasy exists as a successful genre today is Tolkien.
Without the popularity of LOTR Jordan, Martin, and Brooks would have never even gotten published.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Sobenz, you wrote:
quote: I would have had LotR not as popular as it is, and have it as a 50 year old novel that is still good even when compared to today's newest and greatest fantasy novels...
I think the problem you're having here is that this IS how LotR is seen by people who actually read the newest and greatest fantasy novels. I think, quite frankly, that you're reading the wrong books in the genre.
There's actually quite a lot of non-Tolkiensian fantasy out there, and some of it is really excellent. It's true that Tolkien's shadow hangs heavy over the genre, and even the best non-Tolkiensian books often CONSCIOUSLY avoid his tropes -- which, in their own way, makes them as indebted to that novel. If you aren't seeing innovation in the fantasy genre nowadays, you aren't reading the right fantasies.
Neal Stephenson's work is closer to fantasy in tone and practice than to sci-fi; Neal Gaiman, China Mieville, and Charles DeLint do interesting urban/modern fantasy; and Card's Alvin Maker books are intriguing alternative history.
If you define fantasy as "swineherd with tattoo gets big sword, teams up with old wizard, and kills evil baddie by marching through every country labeled on the map in the inside front cover," then of COURSE all fantasy is going to look alike. That's like saying modern literature is about a young man who moves to the city to make his fortune and winds up falling in love with the daughter of his boss, perhaps saving her from a drug addiction along the way. (It's worth noting, by the way, that many of those cliches -- the swineherd, the tattoo, and so on -- are not so much Tolkien-ish as Campbell-ish.)
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
OOC:
quote:Without the popularity of LOTR Jordan .... would have never even gotten published.
And that's the real harm that Tolkien caused. Posted by KrimsonReaper (Member # 6532) on :
quote:Some author should have done something truly original that not all fantasy novels written in the new millenium had a big line connecting them to LotR and LotR only in the fantasy novel family tree.
Hello? I can think of one particular author that rips that statement to shreds. I'll give you a hint: You're on his site at this very moment. Ever heard of the Alvin Maker series?
Posted by Kamisaki (Member # 6309) on :
HeHe. So much for him getting help for his paper. Yeah, I think it's a bad idea to ask people who are knowledgable about a subject to validate the conclusion that you reached in ignorance.
BTW, Tom said pretty much everything I was going to say in his last post. You're just not reading the right stuff, Sobenz. Either that or you have way too narrow a definition of "fantasy."
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
quote:Hello? I can think of one particular author that rips that statement to shreds. I'll give you a hint: You're on his site at this very moment. Ever heard of the Alvin Maker series?
Wait... that's Heinlein. No, Gaiman!
I think I'm close on this one. Throw me a bone, here.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: Hello? I can think of one particular author that rips that statement to shreds. I'll give you a hint: You're on his site at this very moment. Ever heard of the Alvin Maker series?
Um, actually, no.
OSC has said that his intention with the Alvin Maker series was to create an American Mythology just like Tolkien did with LotR. So there is a big line connection LotR and Alvin Maker.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
That is like saying that every author who writes a book in an imaginary land is copying Tolkien.
OSC has avoided most of the traps that other authors have fallen into, at least with the AM series. It takes place in an alternate history, not a " singular creation", and the mythology he uses has little to do with mainstream fantasy.
Tolkien used many sources, and just because a story uses magic doesn't mean that the story owes a debt to Tolkien, it could be they are drawing from similar sources.
Now OSC owes Tolkien another type of debt. Thanks to LOTR it is possible to publish these types of books and make a tidy profit too...... Posted by Magson (Member # 2300) on :
I can think of quite a bit of "Non-LOTR" style fantasy that is quite excellent as well. And from my experience, it is the author that makes all the difference -- there are those that everything that comes from them just doesn't "do it" for me, and others that every word that flows from their pen seems perfect.
That said, I can't stand LOTR. It's unreadable to me. I read Peter Hamilton's 3500 page Night's Dawn series in about a week and a half, but it took me 3 months to get 100 pages into FOTR before I gave up. I actually prefer Dennis McKiernan's "shameless rip-off" of Tolkien in the Iron Tower series. So -- take my suggestions with a grain of salt of the appropriate size.
He got his start writing Battletech novels, of all things. A friend gave me the "Warrior" trilogy, and because Stackpole did so well with them, I made the mistake of thinking that the Battletech novels were good. It didn't take me very long to realize that, no they weren't, just Stackpole. Same thing happened with the Star Wars books. Some are better than others, and Stackpole's are very near the top. Then you get into his own body of work in his own worlds.
Talion: Revenant, A Hero Born, An Enemy Reborn, Eyes of Silver, and the 4 books of the Dragoncrown Cycle are all just wonderful.
Matthew Woodring Stover
Heroes Die, The Blade of Tyshalle <-- just go read them. Seriously. Simply amazing. Heck, he even got asked to write a Star Wars book, and not only did he not follow the standard Star Wars book format, he transcended it, and made something greater. I think the reviewer at Amazon said it best:
quote:Matthew Woodring Stover handles many subplots converging onto one another creatively with passion and detail unrivaled in the Extended Universe. A strong psychological thriller as well as science fiction novel, Traitor did not leave the reader confused. Rather, the reader becomes infatuated with every turn of the page and is committed to reading the entire book instantly.
I can't wait for his next release.
Robin Hobb
I think she's a bit more well known, so I don't have to say much about her. Just that I find her work creative, engaging, and quite thought provoking as well.
David Drake amd Eric Flint
Individually, they have written some stuff that's decent. Drake's "Lord of the Isles" is okay, but definitely follows the "Tolkien pattern." Flint's The Philosophical Stangler is a farcial light read. Very creative, and many times side-splittingly funny, but nothing spectacular. But, their collaboration on the "Belisarius" quintet of books is simply wonderful. It's sort of an Alternate History, but with elements of sci-fi and fantasy added in, told with power and wit. Also very funny at times too. Truly an excellent series. It begins with a book titled An Oblique Approach and I don't recall the titles of the other ones right off, but if you pick up the 1st one, I'm sure you can figure it out. . I did, after all, so anyone can.
There are more, of course, but I think this is enough to start with.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*shudder* Magson, I'm always amazed to see how two relatively intelligent people can so disagree on matters of taste.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
)![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)