quote: Isn't anyone going to acknowledge that Tolkien didn't really found the modern genre of fantasy after all? Or try to rebut it?
ae I would say rather that he brought to a modern audience a sub-genre in fantasy ( though probably the largest sub-genre.), namely old english myth telling, with elves and dwarves etc. Yes, there were fantasy writers before JRRT. But not many. Look how many are around today. A lot of the explosive growth in fantasy is because of JRRT and LotR. He reinvented fantasy by inventing extensive fictional languages, geography, history, legends, etc. on a scale unheard of before in its depth.
This is what he should be remembered for--his incredible attention to detail, intricate plotting, charcterization, and imagery. He set the bar for all future fantasy writers, and he set it high. Morbo Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, not much evidence is needed, really. People were writing and publishing stuff in a somewhat similar vein to Tolkien's before and around the time that LotR was published. Ergo, Tolkien could not possibly have founded the genre of fantasy, or even the sub-genre of high fantasy. To attribute that position to him is unfair to the writers who did.
Disclaimer 1: He did, however, popularise the genre. No argument there.
Disclaimer 2: None of what I'm saying has anything to do with his merit.
Posts: 2443 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would say rather that he brought to a modern audience a sub-genre in fantasy ( though probably the largest sub-genre.), namely old english myth telling, with elves and dwarves etc.
High fantasy, in other words. Yes, I agree.
quote:Yes, there were fantasy writers before JRRT. But not many. Look how many are around today. A lot of the explosive growth in fantasy is because of JRRT and LotR.
Unfortunately, in my opinion.
quote:He reinvented fantasy by inventing extensive fictional languages, geography, history, legends, etc. on a scale unheard of before in its depth.
I would dispute that, except of course for the fictional languages bit.
quote:This is what he should be remembered for--his incredible attention to detail, intricate plotting, charcterization, and imagery.
I would dispute this too.
quote:He set the bar for all future fantasy writers, and he set it high.
posted
AK: "Cool! Where in the country were you? It was in about 1974 that I first read it, I think. I started college in 1976 and nobody at my school (a small quite provencial school), seemed to have heard of it then."
It was 1976 and I was at a junior boarding school in Lake Placid, NY. (My dad taught there for a year) It was a neat school, and I taught there for two years after college. I think, though, that it was The Hobbit they taught in eighth grade, and then everyone read the rest of "The Trilogy," as we called it, on their own.
Eaquae Legit: "I am somewhat of an oddity, since I LOVE the pacing and rhythm of ancient myth."
I do, too. My favorite is The Epic of Gilgamesh.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't have anyone new to mention, but I'd just like to throw my own recommendation behind a few that are already out there.
Joel Rosenberg doesn't write deep, heavy stuff. If you're looking for something that will change your life, you may be disappointed. What he does write, though, are fun stories that include some of my favorite characters in all of fiction.
I'm a big fan of Roger Zelazney. He's written a lot of stuff, but I think what he's best known for (and rightly so) is his Chronicles of Amber series. I started with that one, and after that, the rest of his stuff just didn't measure up (although they were still good reading).
Gene Wolfe is my favorite writer, period. Everything I've ever read by him has at least impressed me, but many of his works have amazed me. My personal favorite is The Fifth Head of Cerberus, although he is best known for his The Book of the New Sun series, and it's sequel series, The Book of the Long Sun and The Book of the Short Sun. I just recently finished reading Peace, which is now giving Fifth Head a run for its money or the number one spot. Wolfe blurs the lines between the traditional speculative fiction genres and is, in my opinion, one of the best writers who ever lived.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Isn't anyone going to acknowledge or rebut the fact that Tolkien didn't really found the modern genre of fantasy after all?
It depends on how you define 'modern' 'genre' and 'found.'
Every genre has its precursors. I don't see anyone arguing that Tolkien was the first writer of fantasy. Do you define 'genre' by a certain type of writing, certain elements, symbols, plotting, characters, etc.? Do you define it by when it first became a recognized marketing and publishing category and found a readership?
Modern is also relative. To me Dunsany is not a modern fantasy writer. But that's because I have a somewhat strict definition of 'modern.' And if you're going to include him, what about other authors of the early 20th and late 19th centuries who wrote 'fantastic' literature, but it was grouped more in the nebulous 'literary' category because fantasy wasn't quite yet a field of its own.
As fars as 'found' goes. This a term that will always be in contention, but really, the 'founding' of a literature happens when a great figure comes along -- even if there are precursors who influence him/her or who he/she stole from. Thus Eminescu *founded* Romanian literature. Chaucer *founded* English literature (or not -- there's a lot of room for discussion with that one -- I'd probably make the case for Shakespeare, but whatever).
I think it's perfectly reasonable to suggest that Tolkien is the founder of the modern fantasy genre. And like most folks who do the 'founding' (Jedediah Springfield, for example), he gets more acclaim and more blame than he probably deserves.
-----
Wolfe's Fifth Head is quite remarkable. It's the kind of work that should be taught in intro. to lit classes, imo.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read a bunch of Zelazny's "Amber" series, and I liked it, but didn't contine after the sixth book or so. I don't even remember why.
It reminded me of another writer I have not heard mentioned at all: Michael Moorcock. I guess he is both a sci fi and a fantasy writer. i read the "Messiah at the End of Time" series. I LOVED the first book, it is one of my very favorites.(People in the future go back into the past, capture people, and put them in a menagerie.)
I read a few books in the Elric saga.("Elric of Melnibone) It made me uncomfortable. I feel the same discomfort now, just writing about it. I am not sure why. I didn't dislike the books, I guess they were too dreamlike or something. Did anyone else read them?
quote:Every genre has its precursors. I don't see anyone arguing that Tolkien was the first writer of fantasy. Do you define 'genre' by a certain type of writing, certain elements, symbols, plotting, characters, etc.? Do you define it by when it first became a recognized marketing and publishing category and found a readership?
I would argue that by the first definition, Tolkien did not found the genre of fantasy. By the second, he did, but this doesn't seem to be what people mean when they say it. Look at these posts (emphases mine):
quote:You guys ripping on Tolkien crack me up. Why do you think elves and dwarves are considered cliche? Because Tolkien set the bar so high with them that everyone thought that was the only way to do things. He simultaneously defined and redefined the fantasy genre, much as Jimi Hendrix did with guitar. Just like Hendrix, once everyone saw what Tolkien was doing, they knew that he was WAY ahead of his time, and operating on a level other people wouldn't reach for decades, if at all.--policyvote
quote:There was no genre of fantasy before Tolkien was published. I have one that was printed long enough ago that they still were being marketed as sort of kids' books. There's a funny dancey font that the title is in, as though it's not a serious book at all. Lord of the Rings! <laughs> There was no way to market them as fantasy because there WAS NO SUCH GENRE before these became wildly popular.--ak
quote:He did invent the genre in modern English writing. Of course mythologies of many cultures could be called fantasy, and those he DID draw upon. But there was no genre of fantasy, no way to market his books, when he wrote them.--ak
quote:He reinvented fantasy by inventing extensive fictional languages, geography, history, legends, etc. on a scale unheard of before in its depth.--Morbo
Parts of these do refer to the genre as a marketing category, but that's not all they're referring to. They're saying that Tolkien did something new, and did it better than anyone who came before. This is what I disagree with.
quote:Modern is also relative. To me Dunsany is not a modern fantasy writer. But that's because I have a somewhat strict definition of 'modern.'
I'm not sure what relevance this has. "Modern" as we are using it isn't a separate clause; it is merely a part of "modern fantasy", which is a term we are using to refer to a certain sort of writing. Whether or not this genre did, in actual fact, arise in modern times is not pertinent to the discussion.
quote:And if you're going to include him, what about other authors of the early 20th and late 19th centuries who wrote 'fantastic' literature, but it was grouped more in the nebulous 'literary' category because fantasy wasn't quite yet a field of its own.
That's precisely my point: that Tolkien did not, in fact, do anything but popularise the fantastic! He made it widely read and he gave it its own marketing category, but that is all he did. The genre of literature existed before him, the most convenient example of this being Poul Anderson's The Broken Sword, even if it was perceived as being either a subset of Literature or of science fiction.
quote:As fars as 'found' goes. This a term that will always be in contention, but really, the 'founding' of a literature happens when a great figure comes along -- even if there are precursors who influence him/her or who he/she stole from. Thus Eminescu *founded* Romanian literature. Chaucer *founded* English literature (or not -- there's a lot of room for discussion with that one -- I'd probably make the case for Shakespeare, but whatever).
I'm not well-versed in this stuff. Could you explain in a bit more detail what exactly the founding of a branch of literature entails? "[T]he 'founding' of a literature happens when a great figure comes along" is not very helpful.
quote:Wolfe's Fifth Head is quite remarkable. It's the kind of work that should be taught in intro. to lit classes, imo.
I agree.
Elizabeth:
quote:I read a bunch of Zelazny's "Amber" series, and I liked it, but didn't contine after the sixth book or so. I don't even remember why.
Probably because the series got worse as it got longer.
quote:It reminded me of another writer I have not heard mentioned at all: Michael Moorcock. I guess he is both a sci fi and a fantasy writer.
Moorcock is one of those writers I respect but don't really like. I know I should assess his older works as products of their time and recognise how innovative and original they were, but I've been spoiled by newer, better things, and can't really appreciate it. I'll probably pick up some of his newer stuff some time.
Posts: 2443 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm bumping this to give props to Martin and give Kasie a chance to take a look.
And again, though the fool that started this thread was entranced with Hobb, he was a fantasy virgin and knew no better. Hell, I'm not even a huge Brust fan anymore, and he's far above the average himself.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh yes. I've read Zelazny's Ridiculously Large Book of Amber, and it's truly memorable. Despite all the trauma therapy I'm taking to put it behind me.
posted
Most of my fantasy preferences have already been listed, but I didn't see anyone mention Card's own Hart's Hope which was excellent. Posts: 1595 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think everyone assumes that everyone else is familiar with Card's works, but yes, Hart's Hope is really good fantasy.
Eddie, I think I understand your disallusionment with Hobb, but did you try either of the following trilogies? They make the ending of the Farseer Trilogy make more sense I believe. It even becomes almost neccessary.
I admit that they are far from perfect works, but I wouldn't be ashamed of your praise. After all, I think Martin is Hobb's biggest fan .
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't care for Hobb, either. They kept me interested enough to finish, but when I was done I felt unfulfilled. Like eating a huge meal that was only illusion. In the end there's nothing left in your stomach. Does anyone else feel that about her? I am that way about much of fantasy, though, which is probably why I don't read it much. But UKL and Tolkien are different.
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've read people's complaints about Hobb, and I still don't get them. I have nothing but good to say about any of the Farseer, Liveship or Fool books. I think they're as well written as (or better than) any fantasy since Tolkien. Better than Martin, even (although I do really like Martin).
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Live and let live, I guess.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
