Topic: OSC is not right in this review about HP 4 and 5... IMO
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Tolkien also has the advantage that hes practically the father of ALL modern High Fantasy it isn't a hard deduction to from say reading the Homeland Trilogy from Forogtten Realms and figure out that Tolkien inspired Salvatore and by extension all modern fantasy authors so then the person then discovers tolkien and repopularizes it.
I read the books after seeing the new movie, and then the hobbit, and then the Silmilerion.
IP: Logged |
posted
The Homeland Trilogy? This is what you cite as Tolkien-inspired? Um, no. Except in the general sense that Tolkien formed the basis of modern fantasy. What similarities do you see that would lead someone not already familiar with the genre to see Homeland as being strongly influenced by Tolkien?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: The Homeland Trilogy? This is what you cite as Tolkien-inspired? Um, no. Except in the general sense that Tolkien formed the basis of modern fantasy. What similarities do you see that would lead someone not already familiar with the genre to see Homeland as being strongly influenced by Tolkien?
If you read the author biography summaries at the opening of the book usually the writer says who/what inspired him, almost all of the books written around 2nd edition all say they've read "Lord of the Rings" and were inspired by it etc.
I just said the Homeland trilogy as an example.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Tolkein, on the other hand, is too new to be compared to Mozart. What happens when Tolkein's English becomes too dated to be read easily by casual readers in the original? There's a reason people largely stopped reading Robinson Crusoe, though it was formerly the most popular novel in the English language. Did it get less great? The ability for the work to transcend translation and time are important factors.
Yeah, it's because Robinson Crusoe is an awful book. The language is frustrating, the story is boring and the narrator's a snob to boot. In my opinion, the reason it was the most popular novel in the English language was because it was the first.
I don't happen to disagree, but it remained wildly popular for like 200 years.
Worst part of the book is that it has no paragraphs, and a frustrating lack of punctuation.
quote: Tolkien also has the advantage that hes practically the father of ALL modern High Fantasy it isn't a hard deduction to from say reading the Homeland Trilogy from Forogtten Realms and figure out that Tolkien inspired Salvatore and by extension all modern fantasy authors so then the person then discovers tolkien and repopularizes it.
Defoe was the father of the novel. Just cause he did it first doesn't mean he did it best.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blayne, I'd like to see you argue that any Japanese author is more relevant to this discussion, about Tolkein, than Daniel Defoe.
I realize you have to stroke your Asiaphile reputation by one-upping me with that, but in terms of the current discussion, Daniel Defoe is more the father of the novel than any Japanese writer. Even if the novel was extant in Japan before Defoe, Defoe did not get the idea from reading Japanese literature, so your point is moot. Remember KoM warning you about these little games? It's annoying.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dude, that wasn't Blayne, that was me. I read somewhere that Tale of Genji is considered the first novel. But, there's the first WESTERN novel to consider.
Sheesh...
See? http://www.taleofgenji.org/ One of these days I'll have to read that novel in English and in Japanese. Plus Blayne is fixated on China and me more on Japan....
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Blayne, I'd like to see you argue that any Japanese author is more relevant to this discussion, about Tolkein, than Daniel Defoe.
I realize you have to stroke your Asiaphile reputation by one-upping me with that, but in terms of the current discussion, Daniel Defoe is more the father of the novel than any Japanese writer. Even if the novel was extant in Japan before Defoe, Defoe did not get the idea from reading Japanese literature, so your point is moot. Remember KoM warning you about these little games? It's annoying.
posted
She was responding to a factual assertion that wasn't true, not continuing the rest of the discussion. You might have noticed that a discussion is not always focused on a single topic.
Of course, she wasn't correct, either, but her understanding is a common myth.
As for your response, I suspect most people in Europe might be more familiar with important authors of novels such as Cervantes, who predates Defoe by quite a bit. Defoe isn't in the least the father of the novel. He was at best one of the first authors of an English novel . . . at a time when people in England were well acquainted with numerous novels in other languages. Calling him "the father of the novel" is inaccurate even if we exclude areas out of contact with England where the novel developed.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: As for your response, I suspect most people in Europe might be more familiar with important authors of novels such as Cervantes, who predates Defoe by quite a bit. Defoe isn't in the least the father of the novel. He was at best one of the first authors of an English novel . . . at a time when people in England were well acquainted with numerous novels in other languages. Calling him "the father of the novel" is inaccurate even if we exclude areas out of contact with England where the novel developed.
Again, points outside the relevance of the discussion. Defoe is considered the father of the novel when talking about English language literature. Whether that is a correct historical assumption or not, it is a common assertion, and works on the grounds of Defoe's popularity and influence. Robert Frost was not the first American Poet by two centuries, but is considered "the grandfather of American Poetry." Bach was not the first person to write for equal temperament, but the system is often attributed to his name in light of his influence. Picasso was not the first cubist, and Peter was not in his time considered a Pope, nor was Galileo the first Copernican astronomer, nor Copernicus, for that matter. That 'people' were familiar with other novels is not in question. That Defoe was iconic as an Early English novelist is indisputable, and that's why he gets the honorary "father of." I wasn't aware that you were familiar with the exacting qualifications needed to attain that very official title- I'm not even aware of what sanctioning body awards it. So for every assertion of "so and so" was the father/mother of "whatever," apply your own personal grain of salt, and save your quibbling unless you think the assertion is just totally false. It's not very important, and it's certainly nothing to do with why I brought up Defoe in the first place.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Orinoco, I just want to point out that this
"I realize you have to stroke your Asiaphile reputation by one-upping me"
is a fairly jerky thing to say to someone who is conversing with you. Why assume bad motives? Why assume people are picking a fight with you? It's so much better to converse freely and assume good faith from all sides. Interesting conversation is the aim, not oneupmanship.
Thanks for listening. I hope this is taken in the spirit in which it is meant, as a constructive suggestion or comment on posting style.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry if my annoyance at this particularly hatrack foible shows too strongly. I know I contribute to it myself as often as not- but in this case I'm still right. I don't see why I should have to field objections to a fairly benign assertion that the objections didn't even really address meaningfully. It just felt like a bit more of a "nuh uh, nuh uh, because so-and-so was really first lolz. You suck haxxor!" Perhaps I was just on a hair trigger at that particular moment.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Shanna: And after the sickeningly sweet epilogue which seemed way too easy in light of the depth and complexity of the books, I am happy to grab onto any answers that may not appear in the books but ring true to the story and its characters. Dumbledore's romantic and sexual history is included on that list.
I hated the epilogue. Worst part of any of the books. Did kind of a "happily ever after" hand waving without any depth or real closure. So I, too, was interested in answers. But I found that as she listed random facts about who marries who and the jobs that the students get later in life that I preferred my own take on it. It all seemed to neat and clean. The aftermath of such a disruptive event is never that way. I mean, all these kids missed their last year of school. Did that matter? Besides, I really thought Harry would become a teacher. I know he'd been dreaming of becoming an auror but that was too simple, especially after he'd gone and taken a wand whose power he wanted to break. Besides, it seemed to me that after he grew up he might find he wanted things to become a little quieter. It's not like he ever went looking for trouble.
So after all that, I changed my mind about the epilogue. It was fine and allowed me to imagine for myself what became of each of the characters. Don't get me wrong, I would have preferred some closure, but an epilogue that would have done that would have been much, much longer. I think I didn't want to see a glimpse 20 years later. I would have preferred just a short year, to see the direction things were heading. But there's almost a new story there.
I wanted to know all those answers too, but I realized that by painting broad strokes she was basically saying this:
School doesn't matter when you are an adult: remember Harry's speech first year about Voldemort not going to attack when you win the house cup. The aftermath and cleanup was probably involved, long, and both dull and interesting, but not relevant. What really matters is this:
Harry wasn't like Ender. His teenage heroism did not isolate him from society nor his closer friends. He is reasonably anonymous, which is great for day to day life.
There were no bad long term effects to Hogwarts and there is some sort of stable Magical government, and Harry is even involved with it. Normalcy, stability, family and love were the rewards that were reached. Unlike the Star Wars universe which has basically undone the epic accomplishments of the Rebel Alliance in Return of the Jedi in the name of plots for the book tie-ins, the Potterverse stayed "saved".
Harry has remained close friends with his old close friends as he is grown. Ron and Hermione did indeed marry, and while they have grown up, they have not changed.
You can assume that most other relationships haven't changed either, or are not notable. Instead, Rowling tells you about the biggies: Neville has changed from the awkward boy to a capable man, Percy is as beloved by the Weasleys as he was before he split with them, and Draco and Harry are neither friends nor enemies.
Honestly, you can read between the lines enough on the rest, why not leave the details to fan imagination?
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I liked the epilogue. I thought it was good for a story to end with Harry having a loving family, being a kind good father. Plus it makes my eyes wet and it's better than him dying or ending up in some sort of heaven surrounded by elf babes or something. Since the elves in that series are not babes.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Perhaps I was just on a hair trigger at that particular moment.
As someone who spends a lot of time reading this forum (not much posting, admittedly), I have to say... the above statement could pretty much apply to any of your posts for the last long while.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Tolkien also has the advantage that hes practically the father of ALL modern High Fantasy it isn't a hard deduction to from say reading the Homeland Trilogy from Forogtten Realms and figure out that Tolkien inspired Salvatore and by extension all modern fantasy authors so then the person then discovers tolkien and repopularizes it.
The only series by Salvatore I'd say that has any influence from LotR is Icewind Dale, due to the crystal shard and all that. That, and the first Demon Wars book are the only real Epics he's written, afaik.
Homeland is almost the exact opposite of an epic - it's all about one person, his choices, and what kind of person he ends up becoming. He certainly interacts with other people, but none of his actions have world shaking consequences, and he doesn't save the day for anyone - other than himself, that is.
Also, it's setting is a malevolent matriarchal city deep in the bowels of the Earth, whose inhabitants ride giant lizards and worship the evil spider god Lolth. That doesn't really resemble anything out of Tolkien.
The impact Tolkien really had (disregarding all the hundreds of copycat authors), was he made high fantasy books written for adults commercially viable. All those people with crazy ideas about strange, fantastic worlds could now write them and reasonably expect to get published.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Tolkien also has the advantage that hes practically the father of ALL modern High Fantasy it isn't a hard deduction to from say reading the Homeland Trilogy from Forogtten Realms and figure out that Tolkien inspired Salvatore and by extension all modern fantasy authors so then the person then discovers tolkien and repopularizes it.
The only series by Salvatore I'd say that has any influence from LotR is Icewind Dale, due to the crystal shard and all that. That, and the first Demon Wars book are the only real Epics he's written, afaik.
Homeland is almost the exact opposite of an epic - it's all about one person, his choices, and what kind of person he ends up becoming. He certainly interacts with other people, but none of his actions have world shaking consequences, and he doesn't save the day for anyone - other than himself, that is.
Also, it's setting is a malevolent matriarchal city deep in the bowels of the Earth, whose inhabitants ride giant lizards and worship the evil spider god Lolth. That doesn't really resemble anything out of Tolkien.
The impact Tolkien really had (disregarding all the hundreds of copycat authors), was he made high fantasy books written for adults commercially viable. All those people with crazy ideas about strange, fantastic worlds could now write them and reasonably expect to get published.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Dan Frank- your criticism is neither asked for nor welcome.
No less true though. But that's fine, I didn't really expect you to suddenly change your behavior based on a one-line comment from a random stranger. I don't have any desire to upset you any more than you already are, so I'll leave it alone now.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Wasn't what I was saying.
You said reading Homeland, not reading some little blurb on the dustcover or on his website. It was exactly what you were saying. If it wasn't what you were meaning, don't blame me for not being a mind reader. (you're too far away for my telepathy to work effectively)
Salvatore apparently became interested in fantasy after reading Tolkien in college, and ultimately decided to major in English. He also writes science fiction, and, most likely, almost all modern day sci-fi authors have read Tolkien. Does that mean all their works are derivative of Tolkien, and someone reading a sci-fi book 200 years from now will, after some of that "deduction", repopularize Tolkien?
How about all those people who thank random friends in their blurbs?
You *could* have picked one of the cheap Tolkien rip-off books and used that as an example, but instead you picked a trilogy of books that have almost nothing to do with Tolkien other than that their author has read his books and found them inspiring - as have most Americans of his generation.
Maybe Tolkien will be remembered for the immense power and beauty of his own creation instead of the unrelated writings of people who read him at one point? I mean, Kurt Vonnegut read Shakespeare at some time in his life, and even quoted him in a few of his books (something Salvatore has never done for Tolkien), in fact he made Shakespear a minor character in one of his books. But do people remember Shakespeare because Vonnegut read him?
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: You *could* have picked one of the cheap Tolkien rip-off books and used that as an example, but instead you picked a trilogy of books that have almost nothing to do with Tolkien other than that their author has read his books and found them inspiring - as have most Americans of his generation.
Are they the ones with Drizzt's backstory? With the Drow society practically a character? Cause that one did feel somewhat Tolkien-esque to me. Much more so than the one with lame magic-crystal-wants-to-take-over-the-world plot.
Granted, the only similarity I can articulate is the story world acting as a character aspect, but I do remember feeling one there.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I don't have any desire to upset you any more than you already are, so I'll leave it alone now.
Please do. I don't welcome thoughts on my state of mind from armchair quarterbacking lurkers. So stop offering them and playing Mr. Niceguy, please. Feel free to post your thoughts, but I'm not going to respond kindly to someone who clearly has the advantage of getting to know me anonymously.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Whether it was truly the first is at least a bit arguable, but it was certainly considered a revolutionary work and a novel in its time.
And if anyone wants to know the winner for first novel in the entire world, the answer is, "some novel we've since lost to history that preceded the Golden Ass"
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry fugu, I didn't catch your comment, and I should have also added 'that we know of'. Though the fact that Cervantes achieved some fame both when it was written and presently shows that he revolutionized the form at least a little bit. Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: Are they the ones with Drizzt's backstory? With the Drow society practically a character? Cause that one did feel somewhat Tolkien-esque to me. Much more so than the one with lame magic-crystal-wants-to-take-over-the-world plot.
Granted, the only similarity I can articulate is the story world acting as a character aspect, but I do remember feeling one there.
The first book is very heavily steeped in Drow culture. I don't see anything Tolkien-esque about it. Actually, come to think of it, it may be a parody of Tolkien's elven cultures - everyone is ruthless, clamoring for power, matriarchal (a nod to Galadriel?), violent, bloodthirsty, demonic... everything Tolkien's quiet peaceful elves aren't.
They don't seem inspired by any part of Tolkien (other than as a parody) though. They don't even resemble Orcish society, with it's strong hierarchy and military ethos - each Drow is far too independent and intelligent (something you'd never attribute to an Orc) to match up at all.
That being said, maybe I'm missing something? What part of it seems to be based on Tolkien to you?
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
