posted
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 RedemptionPosts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 317 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.)
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 8 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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."
Posts: 134 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7600 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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...... Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1323 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
*shudder* Magson, I'm always amazed to see how two relatively intelligent people can so disagree on matters of taste. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
