Unworthy

[Iarwain]

What does everyone think about Lord of the Rings as a member of the Fantasy genre?

Iarwain

[ March 03, 2003: Message edited by: Iarwain ]

[Lady Alasse]

I can see what you mean. Tolkein goes so mush further than any other fantasy book I've read, but if they made another section it would have to be very small. just tolkeins books. I don't think anything else could measure up to this literary master piece.

[the real findorfin]

Nice idea!

The best way to look at it (and in a neat tolkinesque way) is a s afeudal system.

God - Tolkien
Valar - David Eddings, Sara Douglass
Maia - Terry Brooks, Robert Jordan, Maggie Furey, Chris Bunch

Then there are elves, men, dwarves and of course orcs!

(all of the various Ainur are my opinion, feel free to disagree)

[Nimrodel]

The only fantasy I've ever read other than Tolkien is Terry Brooks, which IMHO really STINKS. But then, Tolkien CREATED the genre, so of course, everything else is just an imitation. Even if their ideas are the OPPOSITE of Tolkien's, his is still the template (good choice of words Iarwain)
from which their comparison is drawn.

[Diamond18]

Perhaps a separate genre should be developed?

And that would be...? A genre of one isn't really a genre... After all, since LotR started the Fantasy genre (or at least made it popular and profitable) it doesn't seem like a terrible thing to categorize it with it's successors. In a way, tt's like saying that because some descendents aren't as noble or intelligent (etc.) as their forefathers, the connection should not be acknowledged.

Actually, at my library Tolkien is in regular fiction, though we do have a large Fantasy/Sci-Fi section. But my library also has the nearly R-rated PG-13 movie in the children's section, so I wouldn't say we have it "right". smilies/wink.gif

[ February 22, 2003: Message edited by: Diamond18 ]

[the real findorfin]

At a guess, I would say that many people don't like modern fantasy as much because it is less formal and heroic. For instance if we take the wizards from thre of my favourites.

Gandalf (LOTR) - Wise and kind, heroic in his magical abilites

Belgareth (The Belgariad/David Eddings) - old tramp with bad habits

StarDrifter (Axis Trilogy/Sara Douglass) - outrageous flirt, seducer, womaniser

An obvious trend is that the modern wizards are more 'human' and less heroic in the sense of perfectness, although Belgareth is pretty heroic when he has to be.

I must admit Terry Brooks might be a bit less than Maia on my scale. His overuse of magic (ie. firebolts and swords of flame, etc) may make it seem less real and more dungeons and dragons if you see my meaning.

[Iarwain]

Thank you everyone! Didn't expect a response so quickly. smilies/biggrin.gif

Good old Diamonds, as you have taken the liberty of labeling modern Fantasy as Barbaric and unintelligent, should nobility really be grouped with barbarians? Since others seem to agree that there is something different between Tolkien literature and Fantasy with more typical standards, perhaps those differences could be sifted out and identified, perhaps putting it even with the outside world of general Fiction.

[Kalimac]

I think a lot of it also has to do with the fact that there is hardly any mythical/fantasy situation or character which isn't found in Tolkien to some extent. Wise old Wizard? Check. Bad Wizard? Check. Fiend plotting world domination? Check. Plucky, unheroic main character who comes through? Check. Banished ruler (Fisher King) returning? Well, you see what I'm saying. A lot of the situations are very archetypal, and it's virtually impossible to write a fantasy novel without incorporating several of them. Writers who have the misfortune not to be geniuses will naturally model their characters and situations - consciously or unconsciously - after the best examples they can think of, which are ... Tolkien's. Or else they try very consciously to make a Wizard, for example, who is very much UNLIKE Tolkien's kind - comic and more human, as was pointed out earlier - and then make a poor job of it by comparison.

Diamond, that's interesting - since my library can't make up its mind! Copies of Tolkien are in young adult fiction, adult fiction AND fantasy/sci-fi. Though admittedly stuff like "The Book of Lost Tales" and the Silmarillion are only in adult fiction, not sure why...unless the assumption is that fantasy readers haven't got the patience or depth for the Sil...well, there you go. I'm not sure why so many multiple copies, though - it's the same thing for Harry Potter, it's in young adult, children's fiction, and adult fiction. The only reason I can think of for that is that a lot of adults don't like being told that they book they want to read themselves is in the same section as "Arthur Visits the White House."

And on a side-note...I've never really enjoyed other fantasy novels, at least not the big chunky saga-istic ones. Terry Brooks and Robert Jordan just bored me terribly. Even fantasy short stories tend to leave me cold. So yes, there's just something about Tolkien...we don't know... smilies/smile.gif

[ February 22, 2003: Message edited by: Kalimac ]

[Pukel-Man]

Perhaps Tolkien should be placed in the section that deals with addictions?

[ February 23, 2003: Message edited by: Pukel-Man ]

[Dain]

I don't think we should be so elitist about our beloved books, even if they are better. It makes us look bad. I've read a lot of other books that I've enjoyed, even though they weren't as good as Tolkien's works. Tolkien did have the best grasp of the mythohistorical aspect of the genre, and so his books all seem a little more real than anything else I've read. Other authors can't seem to make their characters "un-modern" if you understand me. As noted, every fantasy book suffers from a lack of originality. There's always a "dark lord" and unlikely hero, etc. While some are blatant copies (Dennis McKiernan), some are interesting. I liked Eddings--he stays away from the normal races (his different races of humans substitute) and has an interesting take on magic and Gods (I liked the Elenium more than the Beleriad or whatever it was). I also liked Jordan while I still kept up with it, because he has a very deep world and some original ideas, though the forces of evil sounded familiar. I can't say I've read much else, though. I tend to stick to science fiction--there are some brilliant authors there. If I get an itching for fantasy, I can always re-read all my Tolkien (and I still have all the HoME books, etc, to go through...).

lol, I think addiction is just about right!

[Arwen_Evenstar]

The difference is most people books are a story within book. Tolkiens works are a WORLD within a book. smilies/biggrin.gif

[Iarwain]

Very true, very true indeed.

Tolkien's books should not be "elitist", but they should be kept in the correct classification, they do contain all of the different storytelling elements of modern fantasy. The idea that Middle-Earth is a complete world with languages and cultures is one of the main ideas that makes it so different from the rest of modern fantasy. This is why it belongs in a separate category, if not unsubcategorized (placed with the rest of the general fiction)

Iarwain

[Diamond18]

Good old Diamonds, as you have taken the liberty of labeling modern Fantasy as Barbaric and unintelligent, should nobility really be grouped with barbarians?

Well, I didn't mean to sound quite that harsh about it. I'm sure there is some very good modern Fantasy, and by saying "less intelligent" I didn't mean to label it all Barbaric. I've read and enjoyed other Fantasy, and I write my own. (Eeep!)

However, I often don't get past the cover-art of modern Fantasy because it does so turn me off, with its scantily clad females standing on snowy cliffs in nothing more than a leather bikini and a shawl of fur draped casully about their shoulders, shooting firebolts out of their eyes. And I could go on about that, but you get the picture. smilies/wink.gif

But I thought it a shame that Fantasy should be so degraded in our eyes that the Daddy of All Fantasy should not be called Fantasy anymore. Maybe we need two genres of Fantasy, "Good, Original Fantasy" (Tolkien, Lewis, LeGuin, et al) and "Cheap Imitation Fantasy". smilies/biggrin.gif

Kalimac: At my library Tolkien is actually not only in adult fiction, but also young adult fiction and adult non-fiction (HoME). But our YA contains a lot of copies of adult, so I usually just disregard that section when I think about it. Mainly I think the reason is that we just have so many copies, they thought they'd spread them about a bit. I do believe we have at least five or six different versions of LotR alone. (Oh, and The Hobbit is in Adult, YA, and Juvenile Fiction. That one puzzles 'em. smilies/wink.gif )

Personally, I rather like thinking of Tolkien as belonging more with the Dickens and Sir Walter Scotts of the literary world. But it is Fantasy.

[Tirned Tinnu]

Ah, I do agree with Diamond, as a former Librarian, I tend to think of Tolkien as British Literature, and as such he'd be heaped up next to Dickens, Lewis, and so forth. Ah, but I probably couldn't help putting a few copies of Grimm's Fairytales right up against Tolkien's works. It'd be rather appropriate, don't you think?
smilies/wink.gif

[ February 24, 2003: Message edited by: Tirned Tinnu ]

[Carorëiel]

I agree. Tolkien is literature. I know many libraries/book stores don't have a separate literature section, but, in my mind, that's where Tolkien belongs. The work has lasting value and literary merit. Academics study it and publish articles/books about it. This is one of the things that separate it from fantasy or general fiction. (I don't mean to imply that a work must receive academic/critical attention in order to be good, but it is one of the ways we tend to judge such things.)

[GaladrieloftheOlden]

Sorry for being so ignorant- who's Terry Brooks? I've heard the name, but I don't know who he is. Also, yes, Tolkien is the Iluvitar of epic/fantasy. But if you placed him in an already existing catergory, what do you think it would be? I found a webpage that said that Lord of the Rings could be counted under one of two catergories- allegory or romance. I find this very annoying, but sort of funny. There was hardly any romance, except a tiny thing about Aragorn and Arwen in the Appendices, and the Lay of Luthien piece that Aragorn sang at Weathertop. As to allegory- the person who made the webpage said that s/he knew that Tolkien stated many times that his works should not be taken for allegory, but did not believe him. Rather strange, don't you think?

[propagandalf]

grr.. perhaps that person should read this part of the foreword:

I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.
-J.R.R. Tolkien, foreword, LOTR TFOTR

As for the original topic, I think I get what you mean. I don’t consider myself an elitist but it hurts to see Tolkien’s works in the same shelf as piers anthony’s. Perhaps Tolkien’s books should be in the same genre as Homer’s Odyssey. (Whatever that genre is). They’re in the same level of ‘worthiness’ in my opinion. Yes, ‘literature’ is the key word. Tolkien’s books are great literary pieces. Sorry I did not contribute much here. grrr.

[galadriel'smaiden]

Perhaps Tolkien should be placed in the section that deals with addictions?

Ugh, I love that thought, Pukel-Man! I COMPLETELY agree! lol

[the guy who be short]

addictions...obsessions... i just read the lord of the rings and got hooked. now i have to read the HoME, i have no choice! and im forcing - forcing- my reluctant friend to read the LotR.

[The Saucepan Man]

I spent much of my lunchhour today trawling round the bookshops of Charing Cross Road in search of The Atlas of Middle Earth (successfully, I'm glad to say). And I noticed that all of the major book-shops have a separate Tolkien section, albeit next to the fantasy and sci-fi fiction sections. And it included not just the books themselves, but also guides, companions, books of illustartions, the atlas and biographies of JRRT. Now this may just be a product of the rise in popularity of the works in the wake of the films, but it seemed to me to be appropriate.

Sorry for being so ignorant- who's Terry Brooks?

Author of the Shannara series, books of the fanatsy genre. I wouldn't recommend that you bother educating yourself. I have only read one of the series, but I would tend to agree with Nimrodel:

Terry Brooks, which IMHO really STINKS

In my opinion, they are vastly inferior attempts to copy the style of LotR.

[Arvedui III]

It's tourture when you're made to read Terry Brooks, "At lest the first one, come they're awesome!" Aghr! I hate little brothers. smilies/mad.gif

[Iarwain]

I'm very happy to have attratcted such an intelligent group of posters! smilies/biggrin.gif

Don't worry, Diamonds, I like some other fantasy also. It isn't all that bad, just very redundant in plot sometimes... I've also written some fantasy (not on a publishable scale though). It can be fun, and its good for the imagination. smilies/smile.gif

It would be very funny to see what other series would be grouped under this "addictive" genre smilies/smile.gif

Quick question, Saucepan, was this Tolkien specific section on the wall with the rest of the alphabetized authors, or had they removed Tolkien to an island, or was it even on a book case of its own? I've never actually seen Tolkien pulled out of the Sci Fi/Fantasy section. Hmm... I've never read terry brooks, though I've probably seen people with his books before.

Singing Quietly,
Iarwain

[The Saucepan Man]

Usually the Tolkien section is in a book-case of its own next to, or opposite, the fantasy section ...

... But this may all change, of course, when the interest prompted by the films dies down.

[the real findorfin]

In partial defence of Terry Brooks...

Although his first book, 'The Sword of Shannara' is in many parts a copy of LOTR, the later books are much better. Of course they are no where near as good as Tolkien, but they're something to read.

At the present moment in time, my favourite Fantasy Authors are...

1) Tolkien
2) David Eddings
3) Sara Douglass

Eddings' work is amazing and isnt a straight copy of LOTR like so many others.

Douglass' is also amazing and a bit less heroic (in the sense of chastity).

All good reads!

[Iarwain]

In reality, I've only read books by two fantasy authors: Tolkien (obviously) and the Miller Brothers (creators of the Myst computer game series).

Both involve in depth, complex solutions to the realities that they produce, along with cultures, histories, languages, and theologies.

I've read excerpts from other fantasy novels and heard all about their plots, and honestly most fantasy seems very dull, and is only popular because of this amazing image it produces, of a world beyond hope of existence, where power is a tangible and attainable thing, endless instances of heroism and battle create forced excitment, and new discoveries as to the nature of this fantastic reality are constantly appearing.

I may be wrong, but if that is what fantasy has become, then how is Tolkien all that similar to it?

Grim,
Iarwain

[ March 03, 2003: Message edited by: Iarwain ]

[Orual]

I agree with a lot of what's been said. I think that Tolkien basically founded fantasy, and though it's true that most (if not all) modern fantasy is vastly inferior to the Lord of the Rings, it's hardly feasible to seperate the Lord of the Rings into its own genre. Though I, too, shudder to think of the Lord of the Rings grouped with anything by Piers Anthony (and forgive me if anybody likes him, I just never got into Xanth), there will always be ups and downs in a genre. "Ender's Game" is grouped with all of those awful Star Wars spinoff stories ("The Courtship of Princess Leia," anyone?), though it's immesurably superior to them. To quote Theodore Sturgeon, "Sure, 90% of science fiction is crud. That's because 90% of everything is crud." This includes fantasy.

~*~Orual~*~

[Meoshi]

That would be known as Sturgeon's Law, I think.

[Meoshi]

Massive mistake in my last post, sorry. smilies/confused.gif

[Orual]

Yep, sure is! But I wasn't sure if everybody would know what Sturgeon's Law was offhand, so I wanted to quote him to make sure. But the "Sure, 90% of science fiction is crud. That's because 90% of everything is crud" quote is, indeed, known as Sturgeon's Law, though the words are occasionally changed slightly depending on the company.

~*~Orual~*~

[Lathriel]

One thing tha I find about Fantasy is that you have to watch out you don't buy crap, but I have an excelent way of knowing good stories from bad. But then again since I am a book worm I always buy a good book and have only twice bought a bad book. I agree with a lot of people that David Eddings's books are good!
There are also two other authors I recommend: Melanie Rawn and Michael Ende
Michael Ende wrote the neverending story, I am sure most of you saw the movie but it is an awesome book I have re-read it 5 times. It is also a unique book, not the average one where the characters have to destroy a great evil. Much more happens and the characters are really interesting.

[Lyta_Underhill]

I have read and enjoyed plenty of other science fiction and fantasy works from this century, and some of them are contemporaneous with Tolkien's work. I think his fantasy is unique and full of depth, but there are created worlds that I can enjoy just as well without having to know their entire history. (I must admit there is something addictive about being able to immerse oneself like that, however!)

One world I particularly enjoy is Fritz Leiber's Nehwon and this world is mapped, just as Middle-Earth is mapped. There was even a role playing game based upon Nehwon at one time. The thing I liked about these books, the Swords series, was the completely human attitudes of its two protagonists, Fahfrd and the Grey Mouser. They were much less heroic and more pragmatic, but also quite different from each other. And they each were pupils of a different wizard with vastly different characteristics. But the focus is not heroic in the traditional sense, but rather adventurous. They satisfy me on a different level than LOTR does. But I enjoy them both! Right now, however, I am caught in the obsession that brought me here!

Thanks for allowing me to prattle on a bit!
Cheers,
Lyta

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

I find that the fantasy I have read that attempts to echo Tolkien invariably becomes little more than a pale reflection, and I share Diamond's exasperation with leather-clad warrior maidens with heaving bosoms and impressively-muscled square-jawed barbarian heroes, but there are some good writers within the genre. One of my favourites is David Gemmell, who doesn't even attempt the epic style so predominant in Tolkien's work, instead opting for a more intimate, personal approach. This only works if one is prepared to sacrifice the epic feel of the piece, something which Eddings is simply unable to do. He wants to use familiar language to describe epic events, which simply doesn't work. Gemmell, on the other hand, takes a completely different view of his stories, telling them on a very human, microcosmic scale, which fits much better with the greater intimacy of characterisation that he clearly prefers.

I suppose that what I'm trying to say is that people who try and fail to imitate Tolkien will never scale his heights. Each writer should find their own style, and it is those who do that rather than trying to imitate the Professor whose work I enjoy reading. This, I think, is the key to writing worthwhile fantasy as it is with any genre. Nobody else can write your stories for you.

[Helkahothion]

I totaly agree with Diamond18 on this matter.

And that would be...? A genre of one isn't really a genre... After all, since LotR started the Fantasy genre (or at least made it popular and profitable) it doesn't seem like a terrible thing to categorize it with it's successors. In a way, tt's like saying that because some descendents aren't as noble or intelligent (etc.) as their forefathers, the connection should not be acknowledged.

You would just be selecting books on qualety and in your opinion Lotr is great, but others might think that it is crap because there has been put to much work in it and they just want to read a book. (can you beleive that? They really excist. I know a couple of those dimwit's myself.) So there would be an endless discussion over wich book where. And riot's might brake out. (They will defenetly do when Lotr is considered a minor book.)

So what you are doing is in a way just discrimenating books. You should not put books in boxes. It is cruel to the writers and readers and it shows no respect for literature.

Greetings,

Anuion

P.S. They could place Lotr on the highest shelf so that it rizes above all the other books tough smilies/wink.gif
________
LINCOLN LIBERTY ENGINE (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Lincoln_Liberty_engine)

[Alatáriël Lossëhelin]

I have read very little fantasy-type literature, because most are just too...well...fantastic (fantastic as in unbelieveable). I don't really classify Tolkein as "fantasy" because the world of Middle-Earth and all of its inhabitants are REAL to me. Not something that someone has made up. They are real people with real emotions, real places, real happenings...(oops! starting to ramble)

I've never read any of the other authors mentioned (Brooks, Eddings, etal) due to lack of interest on my part. However, a friend recommended a set of books to me a few years ago. They are actually 2 sets of 3 books each. "The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever" and "The Second Chronicles..." by Stephen R. Donaldson. While they do not compare with Tolkein's world in layering of history & depth of detail, to my surprise I really enjoyed them and was drawn into this other world called The Land.

[Lalaith]

I don't really like the fantasy genre at all. This is no criticism of those who do like it, it's just my own preference. Lots of people (including all my Tolkien-loving brothers) have lent me fantasy books saying "oh you'd like this if you like Tolkien". The Dune books, Thomas the Unbeliever, Terry Pratchett, etc etc.
I found them all boring and almost unreadable. I just don't regard Tolkien as part of that genre. For me, he belongs in a far more ancient 'genre', that of myth and heroic epic.

[Scott]

Nice observation Lalaith! I personally have always revered Tolkien's use of and influence from Beowulf and the Kalevala. I do however think that (though far from Tolkienian in depth and grasp) "The Book of Three" is a great series.

[thesandman762]

if tolkien is the template, then all the other writers, good and bad, BASE their story on the Tolkien world. So, they should al belong in the same category.

[Iarwain]

Now, good Sandman, I must disagree. If you use an author as your template, that does not in any way mean that you will use the same writing style as them, or even (in Tolkien's case) work outside of reality. One could easily write as rational story about a hopeless struggle in the middle of NYC, and use Tolkien as a template without making their tale fantasy. Am I correct?

Iarwain

[Lush]

StarDrifter (Axis Trilogy/Sara Douglass) - outrageous flirt, seducer, womaniser

Wizards need love too.

Hmmm, well, I'm sorry if I offended anyone in my last post, but I still hold to the idea that Tolkien is no longer like the ninety percent of modern Fantasy. It shares too few of the key elements. This is like placing Homer with a group of books on Urban Legends. It doesn't work. All fantasy needn't be inferior, but it is different, is it not?

You've raised a number of good points, Iarwain, but from what I understand, your arguments seem to be based on emotional ties to Tolkien's work, and I don't really see a solid scholarly argument in there (i.e., something that would actually merit change to take place).

I think that time and evolution of literature as a whole is the only agent that may percipitate the said change. At this point, I really don't mind seeing Tolkien's works stuck next to the paperback literature that features (to borrow from Squatter's example) top-heavy, light-brained sword-maidens and their rugged counterparts, because I know the difference between the two; if some shmuck from the venerable academic world does not, it's not my problem. I refuse to let the opinions of pretentious people influence me.

[Lyta_Underhill]

Does anyone remember when, I think it was back in the 1970's, one was obliged, after reading Lord of the Rings to then move on to read Mervyn Peake's Gormenghast? How many people like them both? They are both classified as fantasy, and yet they are quite distinct in style. Tolkien's style is more linguistic and epic, while Peake, an artist by trade, wrote in a very visual way and drew his narrative landscapes as with a closely detailed paintbrush. Both are classics, in my opinion, although Gormenghast is much less known than LOTR. What they have in common, though, is an "other" world that is somehow tied to ours. Both laid their realms out on top of their places of experience and both draw their environments finely. I would not say their styles are similar, but their focus on detail of place gives me a feeling the attitudes are similar. It is interesting how two works can be so different and yet one can find a thread to tie them together in some way! (And Gormenghast is as far from the sword and sorcery musclemen and scantily clad women art covers of stereotypical "fantasy" as one can get! Peake drew wonderful grotesques and his characters are odd and ugly, yet beautiful in the way he drew them as image or as word painting!)

I just thought this would be a good example of how two works can both be fantasy and yet be VERY different in theme, style, setting, etc. They do share elements. OK, I'll be quiet now! Thanks again! smilies/smile.gif

Cheers,
Lyta

[ March 03, 2003: Message edited by: Lyta_Underhill ]

[aragornreborn]

What Tolkien has created has never been reproduced. It is in a class by itself. No single author has created a world of such magnitude to rival Tolkien. And, Tolkien's world is precisely why it appeals to so many people. Sure, Lord of the Rings has fantastical elements to it, but it is in no way similar to most of the fantasies out there. One must decide then, how exactly fantasy is defined. Tolkien is so different from the rest that it seems to me that one of the groups isn't fantasy.

On a side note, the reason why Tolkien stands alone - apart from any other story - is because, well, what he did is very hard to duplicate. First, Tolkien created languages, histories, cultures, lands, and scads of characters. That can be reproduced. It just takes talent and time. Second, he did it well. Heh heh, that's harder to do. Third, he used up many of the resources out there. Sure there were elves and dwarves and dragons in literature before Tolkien, but Tolkien took them and defined them (dare I say) permanently. If someone were to try to write an epic, like Tolkien did, he would have a very hard time making his world. He could use men and spiritual beings for those are universal. But, from now and forever on, the identity of elves, dwarves, dragons, and all other ME creatures are Tolkien. It would end up being cheap and insincere to borrow them or try to change them. So, writers have a difficult task in front of them. They can try to copy Tolkien and fail miserably or they can write those smaller fantasies which I will not comment on for I have not read them. Or, they can make their own original epic if they are so inclined.

[ March 03, 2003: Message edited by: aragornreborn ]

[Iarwain]

Great posts, Lyta_Underhill, and Aragornreborn. Both of you bring up good points. Tolkien is different, but other fantasy is also different.

Lush, thanks for posting, it gave me a good chuckle. It's true, I know, that many of my arguments are very much emotionally based, but you knew that before, and I don't see anything all that passionate in this thread. Its nice to know that someone is set against me completely in this matter. smilies/smile.gif But, the last part of your post was bordering on futility. If there is an error in a system, isn't it worth fixing? Doesn't that poor shmuck from academia count for anything? Shouldn't they know that there is a difference? This is a slightly concieted manner of thinking, my friend. smilies/wink.gif

Chuckling,
Iarwain

[Lush]

It's true, I know, that many of my arguments are very much emotionally based, but you knew that before, and I don't see anything all that passionate in this thread.

Not passionate (I did not use that term), but emotionally-based. You can actually draw up a decent argument as to why precisely Tolkien's (or T.H. White's for that matter) work should be no longer included under the general umbrella of 'fantasy,' but you would have to argue for a general re-molding of the genre description. Simply calling for Tolkien to be plucked out and placed in general fiction or myth isn't going to accomplish a whole lot.

You are going to run into a whole lot of problems justifying the displacement of Tolkien's work, because no scholar is going to buy the argument that (I am condensing here, please tell me if I am leaving a crucial point out) "Tolkien's work should not be described as fantasy because his books deserve better than being associated with the likes of ."

The one factor that you [i]do have working for you is time. Like I said before: literary genres evolve.

Its nice to know that someone is set against me completely in this matter.

No, not set against you, but set against the way you are going about arguing your point.

Doesn't that poor shmuck from academia count for anything?

You can argue with most academics until you are blue in the face, and it doesn't get you anywhere, unless you have a very solid basis for your argument, which at this point on this thread, we do not (I am speaking on behalf of the entire community of Tolkien fans, if someone here is willing to take me up on the challenge, and draw up a good thesis, PM me).

Shouldn't they know that there is a difference?

The matter of the acceptance of said difference is a question of pluralism within the Western academic community, and right now the odds do not appear to be in the favor of "saving" Tolkien from the realm of fantasy stories. These people will take the very words of Tolkien, and throw them back in your face as a challenge to your argument, and that's if you're lucky, because most of them don't even bother with a response.

This is a slightly concieted manner of thinking, my friend.

Conceited? No. Saving my energy for the time when such an argument would actually have a chance to stand? Definitely.

[ March 03, 2003: Message edited by: Lush ]

[The Saucepan Man]

Iarwain, your original post was:

Lord of the Rings is of a completely different quality than nearly all other fantasy in bookstores. For the most part, other fantasy novels and series are mere copies, whose authors have used Tolkien as a template. I for one don't really think that our beloved belongs with all the rest. Perhaps a separate genre should be developed?

I have to disagree with the final two sentences for the simple reason that Tolkien's works are fantasy works. They involve fantastical races and creatures living in a fantasy land. They are by definition of the fantasy genre.

I think that we can all agree that there are some dire examples of fantasy writing. Equally, there are very good examples. And, yes, the works of JRRT to my mind (and presumably most if not all here would agree with me on this) stand head and shoulders above other fantasy works. But they still fall within the fantasy genre.

The problem, I think, is the general disdain with which the literary world views fantasy. It seems to be a generally held view amongst academics that works of the fantasy genre cannot have literary value in the same way as, for example, the works of Dickens.

But I see no reason why this should not change over time. For example, although Bram Stoker's Dracula and Mary Shelly's Frankenstein are of the horror genre, they are generally regarded as great literary works, certainly moreso than, for example, the novels of Stephen King. But they still fit into the horror genre.

So, I do not see why books such as LotR and the Silmarillion should not in time come to be generally accepted as the literary masterpieces that they are, while still remaining within the fantasy genre. Indeed, given the amount of literary analysis devoted to JRRT's works, compared to those of other fanatsy writers, it seems to me that this process is happily well underway. smilies/smile.gif

[Iarwain]

Bam. I'm crushed. You've killed me, Lush. smilies/biggrin.gif Thanks for informing me about the weak founded nature of my hopless argument. I'm thinking that I ought to feel awfully crushed right now, but I don't. smilies/smile.gif You should watch your wording, at times I think you are purposely trying to put me down smilies/wink.gif I don't feel like any further comments right now.

Chuckling but slightly Annoyed,
Iarwain

[Iarwain]

By the way, Saucepan, wonderful argument. No further comment.

[Lush]

Yes, Iarwain, of course I am going to reserve my animosity not for the snobs that put down one of my favourite writers because his work included Elves and dragons, but for fellow Tolkien enthusiasts such as yourself. Riiight.

I just want you to be able to win your argument someday, and hold to the belief that if you want change to occur, you must work with the system, as opposed to against it.

Giggling but slightly Exhausted,
Lush.

[aragornreborn]

I understand the sentiment behind your posts, Iarwain, and I share it, but Lush and Sauecpan Man have a good point. Just to humor us sentimentalists, though, (you people who prefer to use logic you smilies/wink.gif) could we refer to Tolkien's work as Fantasy/Epic? *pleading* Please!!! Because it is not completely fantasy (weak argument) and is an epic of sorts.

On his knees begging,
aragornreborn

[Lush]

aragorn, of course we can call Tolkien's books whatever we want, what we can't do at this point is change their official designation.

Since I am on Iarwain's ignore list, I'm going to post a quick response here in hopes that he may read it: Of course, I would never consciously take away anyone's right to argue about anythig they wish. Here is what I am trying to say: we are never going to win the argument over Tolkien's present categorization with our present tactics, because the majority of the academia is against us, or simply doesn't care. This is not meant as a personal critique of the topic starter, or anyone else who posts on this thread, this is meant as an observation regarding the general question of what can conceivably be done regarding the fantasy genre in relation to Tolkien.

Basically, we can exercise our right to whine all we want (once again, this is not meant as an insult: I whine all the time, and find that it's a great way to relieve general or specific frustration), but if we want actual change to take place (Iarwain apparently does, as do I), we're going to have to carefully assess the options laid out before us. I am researching the topic as I type this message: e-mailing professors, calling up old teachers and even harassing people at certain other institutions of higher learning (I seem to have a lot of time on my hands; This is what happens to you when you give up on the boys smilies/wink.gif ), not because I think Iarwain is some sort of dweeb who doesn't know what he's talking about, but because I see that there is enough possibility in what he is trying to say to eventually implement change, though it's going to take a whole lot of time, maybe a few centuries, even. But everyone has to start somewhere, right?

[ March 04, 2003: Message edited by: Lush ]

[Lyta_Underhill]

I think you hit one thing on the head, Saucepan Man! If we wait long enough, the best fantasy will eventually be sorted into "classics." I have seen H.P. Lovecraft in the Classics section in bookstores recently, where, only 10 years ago, he was classified as a hack. Even Edgar Allan Poe was called a hack in his day. Now he's a classic! Perhaps all we need is patience and a Numenorian lifespan! smilies/wink.gif

Cheers,
Lyta

[aragornreborn]

Lush, you are way too convincing for your own good, jk. lol. Remind me never to get into a serious argument with you.

Lyta_underhill and Saucepan man: Good point. I hadn't thought of it being made a classic. That's a very distinct possibility. Unfortunately, we have to wait...

[ March 04, 2003: Message edited by: aragornreborn ]

[ March 04, 2003: Message edited by: aragornreborn ]

[InklingElf]

Lush: Basically, we can exercise our right to whine all we want (once again, this is not meant as an insult: I whine all the time, and find that it's a great way to relieve general or specific frustration), but if we want actual change to take place (Iarwain apparently does, as do I), we're going to have to carefully assess the options laid out before us. I am researching the topic as I type this message: e-mailing professors, calling up old teachers and even harassing people at certain other institutions of higher learning (I seem to have a lot of time on my hands; This is what happens to you when you give up on the boys ), not because I think Iarwain is some sort of dweeb who doesn't know what he's talking about, but because I see that there is enough possibility in what he is trying to say to eventually implement change, though it's going to take a whole lot of time, maybe a few centuries, even. But everyone has to start somewhere, right? Yes I've tried whining [a joke smilies/biggrin.gif]. Yes, it's true. It would take a long time for "implementing" change, but Iarwainhas started, through the forum. In the future might we be able to call up proffesors, the media and [as you say] harrasing people smilies/wink.gif? [<BTW: I think we should change that-I don't want to harrass anyone or anything like that! Let's try to be more demure and humble]. Your point is clearly taken, but I would still join in trying to win the arguement [no matter how long it takes].

And mind you, Lush, you are way too convincing for your own good. Yep,I agree!
The Saucepan Man: The problem, I think, is the general disdain with which the literary world views fantasy. It seems to be a generally held view amongst academics that works of the fantasy genre cannot have literary value in the same way as, for example, the works of Dickens.

But I see no reason why this should not change over time. For example, although Bram Stoker's Dracula and Mary Shelly's Frankenstein are of the horror genre, they are generally regarded as great literary works, certainly moreso than, for example, the novels of Stephen King. But they still fit into the horror genre.

So, I do not see why books such as LotR and the Silmarillion should not in time come to be generally accepted as the literary masterpieces that they are, while still remaining within the fantasy genre. Indeed, given the amount of literary analysis devoted to JRRT's works, compared to those of other fanatsy writers, it seems to me that this process is happily well underway.

True, true. I've been pondering about this flaw [in my opinion] myself. It should be a classic!

BTW: I'm glad all of you agree that Tolkien's books are under the genre of fantasy-I think it is too, but I need help understanding why it is also considered to by under sci-fi. I haven't asked this question on any part of the forum, but now it has surfaced after so long...

I talked about it with my 6th grade teacher once and he didn't know either. What kind of science would agree with Tolkien, I wonder.

[ March 04, 2003: Message edited by: InklingElf ]

[Iarwain]

I understand now, Lush. Sorry for that outburst, and you will momentarily be removed from my block list (don't quite remember when that happened). It just set me off: the suttle mockery in what you were saying, especially that of my signature. I suppose I'm done arguing against you now that I understand what you mean. I agree. The discussion does not, ultimately belong here, nor have I provided any solid evidence for Tolkien's removal from the genre. Would you, perhaps, grace us with more of your opinoins? smilies/smile.gif

Iarwain

[Tar-Palantir]

Ok, 2 cents coming from the peanut gallery,

Classification as classic, or mythology, or mythopoetic, or whatever is naught but a feel good justification to the fans and (in the case of 'classics') a hats off to the author.

I am not of the ilk that might have perused the classics section of the bookstore or library as a youngster seeking reading material. Who is most interested in LotR? Generally younger audience who justifiably view it as fantasy reading. I am a case in point that adults too can enjoy wrapping themselves in the breadth and depth of the writing. Still in all, in past, present and future, like me, most others will begin the journey young.

A stand-out does not mean a stand-alone, so why make it such? Why seek to to frame it as a golden light of essential literature? Not that it is not worth attempting if you feel to do so. You are only seeking to give it greater literary recognition, no? Nobly seeking to right an old wrong? Pulling it from the dirty claws of the 'fantasy' genre perhaps? Personally, I don't see the need.

There is a sublime humility present in the LotR, standing there amidst it's lessers. I think that this should be relished, we that have been indoctrinated know what is buried in there. Treasure yet still buried is all the sweeter in the finding.

Another consideration is the remainder of Tolkien's work. The Sil and LotR may stand out, but I believe the entire body of work falls short of their status and will never be categorized under any heading but fantasy. Should they be seperated? Would that serve a purpose? What greater good am I missing?

carry on.

[ March 04, 2003: Message edited by: Tar-Palantir ]

[Mister Underhill]

There is a sublime humility present in the LotR, standing there amidst it's lessers. I think that this should be relished, we that have been indoctrinated know what is buried in there. Treasure yet still buried is all the sweeter in the finding.Very nicely put, Tar-Palantir, though I must say that at the bookstores I frequent, Tolkien is hardly buried these days; rather the other way around. smilies/wink.gif

For what it's worth, the libraries I go to shelve the prof in general fiction (right alongside Tolstoy) rather than in the sci-fi/fantasy section.

[Lush]

Thank you, Iarwain. I am sorry that you thought I was mocking you, I was just being a bit cheeky (as usual).

Great post, Tar, and with supreme logic behind it.

As for me, I will be arranging a meeting with Duke's resident expert on Tolkien after I get back from spring break, and will let everyone know how that goes. smilies/smile.gif

[Mister Underhill]

You mean you're not Duke's resident Tolkien expert? Unheard of! Absurd!

[ March 04, 2003: Message edited by: Mister Underhill ]

[Lush]

At Duke, my primary expertease concerns other, slightly unorthodox fields of study.

On a more serious note, I am very excited for an opportunity to meet this woman. The English Department raves about her, and frankly, I am interested in what she would say to Iarwain's proposition, as well as to my own hammer-headed ideas, as well as what everyone else has mentioned so far.

[Carlas]

Fiction characterized by highly fanciful or supernatural elements.


That is the definition for 'fantasy' or at least the one I found.

The books have many 'supernaturel elements' such as elves and the one ring. But even with all these, Tolkien can make them seem real, not a fantasy. I think it is mainly because there is a whole history to Middle-earth, I think that is what makes it different than other fantasy novels. Most others, you just read it and are left to guess, how all the beings there came to be, why this is called such and such, etc.

This is just my point of view, but everyone else's opinions are interesting, and have gotten me thinking about it even more!

[Iarwain]

Carlas, your argument is completely logical. I can understand how you can think that. However, perhaps the general idea of "Fantasy", and novels classified as fantastical, have changed over the years, since Tolkien first distinguished the idea? I think so. If you follow that definition, several genre's could easily be combined to form the Fantasy genre, which today contains very specific material. Horror, Science Fiction, many instances of Children's Fiction, and even such classics as "A Midsummer Night's Dream" and "Utopia" could be considered "Fantasy". The genre is clearly more specified than its definition makes it out to be. And, over the years, as that genre has been narrowed down and focused, Tolkien has been cut out of the range of sight, remaining but a blur on the periphery. It belongs somewhere else, even though it was the beginning of the genre. Just as Frodo suffered to save the Shire and was forced to give it up, Tolkien, founder of Fantasy, should leave it behind for those to whom it now belongs.

Iarwain

P.S. Lush, I hope that provides the start of a better argument! smilies/wink.gif smilies/smile.gif

[Tar-Palantir]

Did a little research...

Webster's New World Dictionary, vol. II:
Fantasy - n,
1. Giant talking eagles
2. Hey dol, merry dol! Ring-a-dong dillo!
3. Any world bereft of lust and churches

[ March 05, 2003: Message edited by: Tar-Palantir ]

[InklingElf]

Tar: smilies/biggrin.gif interesting definition.
A stand-out does not mean a stand-alone, so why make it such? Why seek to to frame it as a golden light of essential literature? Not that it is not worth attempting if you feel to do so. You are only seeking to give it greater literary recognition, no? Nobly seeking to right an old wrong? Pulling it from the dirty claws of the 'fantasy' genre perhaps? Personally, I don't see the need.
Well neither do I, but considering my 8th grade English teacher's lack of admiration for Tolkien's works [I don't think she even read any book of his yet], I would still pursue. :shrugs: The only teacher i've had who liked Tolkien was my 6th grade teacher [and he actually read the books too].

Yes I get it with fantasy and all, but my question is still not answered: BTW: I'm glad all of you agree that Tolkien's books are under the genre of fantasy-I think it is too, but I need help understanding why it is also considered to by under sci-fi. I haven't asked this question on any part of the forum, but now it has surfaced after so long...

I talked about it with my 6th grade teacher once and he didn't know either. What kind of science would agree with Tolkien, I wonder.

[aragornreborn]

It's not under science-fiction at my library. Is this a common thing to put Tolkien in sci-fiction? If it is, the government must be behind it because there is no logical explanation whatsoever (IMO).

Ahh, a theory! Since it's not in sci-fiction at my library I went back to the previous posts on this thread to see about other people's libraries, and I noticed that it appeared that many libraries group Fantasy and Science Fiction together which makes sense a little bit. Science-fiction in general can have elements of Fantasy in it and vice versa. Tolkien's work does not have a shred of Sci-fi in it, but, as it has been noted smilies/wink.gif, Tolkien is still in the Fantasy genre. So, guilty by association.

[ March 05, 2003: Message edited by: aragornreborn ]

[ March 05, 2003: Message edited by: aragornreborn ]

[Turambar]

Check this out: <A HREF="http://"http://"http://www.sfbc.com/doc/content/sitelets/FSE_Sitelet_Theme_2.jhtml?SID=nmsfctop50&_requestid=52875" TARGET=_blank>http://www.sfbc.com/doc/content/sitelets/FSE_Sitelet_Theme_2.jhtml? SID=nmsf c top50&_requestid=52875"]Top 100 Sci-Fi Fantasy Books of the Past 50 Years</A> (apologies if this was already posted). Note #41, in addition to #1.

[ March 06, 2003: Message edited by: Turambar ]

[ March 06, 2003: Message edited by: Turambar ]

[InklingElf]

the government must be behind it

hmmm quite a possibility

[Iarwain]

Nice link, Turambar. Apparently I've read more fantasy than I thought. I've read five books on the list, and six more related to those. (1,3,10,26,41)

That's nice that your teacher was familiar with Tolkien, Inkling. I've never had that experience. My current English teacher is a tad on the annoying side and is completely uninterested. Very few of the people I know have read Tolkien. Others claim to know the story through the films (which they do not). They use their former knowledge to cancel out and verify whatever I say on the topic, so its sort of hard to educate them. smilies/smile.gif The only reason Tolkien could possibly be considered Sci-Fi is if Fantasy and Sci-Fi were merged.

Iarwain

[InklingElf]

That's nice that your teacher was familiar with Tolkien, Inkling. I've never had that experience. My current English teacher is a tad on the annoying side and is completely uninterested.

In fact, most all of my English teachers don't care about Tolkien, and my 6th grade teacher was only able to read up to The Hobbit smilies/frown.gif . It's probably too complex for them smilies/smile.gif . Well I hope the teachers I have in Highschool are going to be way more appreciative than my past ones. It's hard to talk about it in my school 'cause no one really knows about it.

Turumbar: Did you get my PM? I was confused about how to do that too before-so I hope it helps.

BTW: I'm re-reading the article right now

[Diamond18]

Iarwain (and anyone else, for that matter), you really ought to read #5, A Wizard of Earthsea and its ensuing novels, The Tombs of Atuan, The Farthest Shore, Tehanu, Tales from Earthsea, and The Other Wind. (Six, eh eh eh)*

They're excellent original Fantasy, in a highly developed world. Of course, it's hardly "modern fantasy" as the first was written in the 60's. But anyway, I think those are deserving to hold shelf space along with Tolkien. smilies/wink.gif

*(I shamelessly flaunt my Seasame Street history.)

[The Saucepan Man]

That was an interesting link, Turambar. It's a Sci-Fi site, and yet it lists both Sci-Fi and Fantasy literature in its "most influential" list. Also, very interesting that LotR comes out top.

Clearly, there is a point at which Sci-Fi and Fantasy (and also Horror) merge. For example, the Dune series (of which I have only read one) are very much Sci-Fi books, and yet the societies which they portray are often very similar to the kinds of societies which we might find in a Fantasy book. Similarly, Anne McCaffrey's Pern books (which I remember with great affection) were definately set in a Fantasy world, but had a Sci-Fi origin (in that the people of the world had arrived there by means of space travel).

So, I don't see any problem with the close association of these genres. They both rely, as a premise, on a fantastical world very diffferent from our own. Some (like LotR) fall squarely on the Fantasy side, while others (Asimov, Arthur C Clarke) are clearly at the Sci-Fi end of the literature spectrum.

Both (all three, including Horror) genres have their prizes and their boobies. I would be hard pushed not to rate Asimov's books as classics. So, it's not really the genre that counts, but the quality of the book. For example, Wuthering Heights is probably best defined as a work of romantic fiction. And so are the works of Barbara Cartland. I know which I would rather read ... smilies/wink.gif

[InklingElf]

Diamond18: Iarwain (and anyone else, for that matter), you really ought to read #5, A Wizard of Earthsea and its ensuing novels, The Tombs of Atuan, The Farthest Shore, Tehanu, Tales from Earthsea, and The Other Wind. (Six, eh eh eh)*

I've just read the first two books a couple weeks ago-and yes this is some great fantasy, one shouldn't miss! I'm planning to read The Farthest Shore soon.

The Saucepan Pan: I've also read Dune aswell Dune Messiah is good too].

Both (all three, including Horror) genres have their prizes and their boobies. I would be hard pushed not to rate Asimov's books as classics. So, it's not really the genre that counts, but the quality of the book. For example, Wuthering Heights is probably best defined as a work of romantic fiction. And so are the works of Barbara Cartland. I know which I would rather read ...

Rightly put. In short it would revert to a quote [that i'm sure most everyone has heard before]: Don't judge a book by it's cover

Something like that relates to what you're saying. I never said I was bias to sci-fi, just wondering why Tolkien was classified under sci-fi...Great points!

[Iarwain]

Very good, Saucepan, I've always thought of Asimov's books as classics in the Sci-Fi genre (my English teacher apparently thinks so too, as she makes constant refrences on my papers). The genre does have its different branches, just like fiction in general.

Diamonds, I'll have to look at those... Thanks for the suggestion! smilies/smile.gif


Iarwain

P.S. The Dune books are most captivating, but once you get past the third or fourth book, it gets a bit tedious. I found Children of Dune to be the most interesting book that I read.

[ March 05, 2003: Message edited by: Iarwain ]

[InklingElf]

Really? Oh great-and I thought all of them were good. Will be looking forward to it Iarwain.

BTW: What comes before Dune Children?

BBTW: Let's not get off the topic... On the back of the Dune book I read-it said that it was equaled to Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings. Comments anyone?

[Iarwain]

Funny, on the back of my copy it said it was rivaled only by Tolkien. Dune Messiah comes before Children of Dune which comes before God Emperor of Dune, the Fourth Book.

Iarwain

[Lalaith]

For some reason, Ursula Le Guin has more 'credibility' among the literary establishment than Tolkien, who is, unfortunately, still stuck the 'genre' category by many who don't enjoy him.
This is a good way of dismissing him, as "genre" works of any kind - history, sci-fi, whatever - are simply not seen as literary by academia. If Tolkien is to be given the literary credibility he, IMO, heartily deserves, it would be more straightforward to have him taken out of the genre, rather than to attempt to persuade the establishment to accept genre literature as 'proper' literature.
Sorry, I'm not sure I've put that as clearly as I could have done, hope I haven't confused the issue further.

[Iarwain]

Not confusing at all, Lalaith. I fail to understand you only on one point. If the people of the academic world judge works to be or not to be of a specific genre, then how should we plan to get around their generally accepted judgement in changing the genre of Tolkien literature?

[Lalaith]

Ha, that's a poser!
Well, one thing that springs to mind is this: Tolkien is highly respected as a translator and academic of early and middle English literature, even by those who are snooty about LotR. Pointing out the strong links between Tolkien's creative work and the traditions of the old literature that he specialised in, might possibly help.

[Iarwain]

Even then, though, you would be relating back to the academic world. This is the same problem that our good friend Lush caught me on, when I was arguing for the same thing as you. Who would care about Tolkien's knowledge as a philologist but someone in the academic world? Most people find it irrelavent that Isaac Asimov was a professor of Biochemestry at Boston University. Unless you make your argument to the leaders of academia (a good argument I might add) you're going to achieve virtually nothing.

Iarwain

[Lalaith]

Except that literary academics often write book reviews and have strong links with the literary sections of magazines and newspapers. On a personal level I have found that stressing the Professor's impressive academic and linguistic credentials does help silence those of my literary friends who are prone to fashionable anti-Tolkien sneering...

[InklingElf]

On a personal level I have found that stressing the Professor's impressive academic and linguistic credentials does help silence those of my literary friends who are prone to fashionable anti-Tolkien sneering...

I feel the same way Lalaith-in fact your situation quite resembles my own [i.e., my English teacher-though it was harder for me to stress it].

[Olorin_TLA]

Hello, Id just thought I'd make my own little comment on here. smilies/biggrin.gif (I had an old accoutn with about 11 posts, but soon after, to cut a long story short, I got a new PC, and never got round to importing my Favourties list of bookmarks smilies/frown.gif)

Anyway, I'd have to partially agree with Nimrodel's statement of "Tolkien CREATED the genre, so of course, everything else is just an imitation. Even if their ideas are the OPPOSITE of Tolkien's, his is still the template (good choice of words Iarwain)
from which their comparison is drawn."

While I don't think that many people would copy Tolkien, he is the Creator of the genre as it were, and you can't escape. Perosnal example: I like to write, and in ym sotries there are diffrent gruops of Elves; some that live in cities, others split off from these who live in woodlands, and others split off from these who lvie in the desert. Anyway, the easy thing to do would be to name the first two "High Elves" and "Wood Elves." But I thought, no, that would be too similar, best change "High Elves" to...hmm, "Goldne Elves." All well and good. Until the time where they're driven into the Wood Elves' lands, forming...the Goldne Wood. At that poitn I laughed and gave up trying to avoid it, it's just one of those things in oife. smilies/wink.gif
Pratchett in fact said that TOlkien is like Mt. Fuji in traditional Japanses art: in all fantasy he's either in the mid-ground, in the distant, or in the forground, and if you can't see him it's because you're standing ontop of the mountain.

[Lathriel]

My brother who is reading LOTR for the first time thiks its more like historical fiction because of Tolkein writing its whole history. I never thought of that but its kinda neat.
note-Ursula le Guin's Earthsea trilogy was interesting

[aragornreborn]

It's not actual history, though. So, it can not be classified as historical fiction.

[Iarwain]

A Brief Comment:

Why should Tolkien be present in all Fantasy? Are Tolkien's thoughts and methods present in all author's minds? Need everyone use elves, dwarves and dragons in their dreams of other worlds? If you can fantasize about somewhere else, why does that somewhere have to contain the "unavoidable" elements of Tolkien's works? Any tale is possible to be told, you just have to work hard to find one that is original. If no one puts any effort into originality, then we end up with an entire genre chock full of lazy imitations and poor recreations of the founder.

Iarwain

[Olorin_TLA]

Well, by "fantasy" I meant the elves, dwarves etc. branch of it. Of course if you didn't use thos,e you'd have no problme. smilies/biggrin.gif

[Eressië Ailin]

Iarwain~ Of course, Tolkien didn't create Elves, Dwarves, Dragons, or Goblins. They all were written about in myths and legends before Tolkien. So, you cannot rightly say that other writers are copying Tolkien by using those species. However, if they were to use Orcs, Hobbits, Ents, or Balrogs, then, yes, they would be copying Tolkien.

[aragornreborn]

Tolkien doesn't have to be present in all fantasy. But, the best fantasy unites both the familiar and the unfamiliar. Tolkien took many common mythological creatures for his mythological/fantasy work. So, if one were to try to write another mythological fantasy of the history of the world, it would be hard because Tolkien used up many of the mythological creatures that people could identify with. Everyone knew a little about elves, dwarves, and dragons. Tolkien used those creatures and gave them a history. Of course, you can make up your own creatures, but creatures that already exist yet are mysterious are the most effective. Fantasy itself does not have to resemble Tolkien or Middle Earth at all. But any attempt at a mythological fantasy of the world would be difficult because many of the common mythical creatures have been taken. It would not be impossible by any means, but would take a bit of work.

[The Saucepan Man]

I think that we might be getting a little precious in describing JRRT as the creator of the fantasy genre. The Hobbit was first published in 1936. At the same time, Robert E Howard was publishing his first Conan stories, and had published a few stories in similar vein earlier. Fritz Lieber's Nehwon books were first published (I think) in the 1940s. And I'm sure that there were fantasy novels published earlier than all these.

Indeed, fairy-tales, involving Elves, Dwarves and Goblins, have been around for centuries, and the Brothers Grimm first started collecting and publishing such tales in the early 19th century.

Of course, in our opinion, JRRT is the best fantasy author. But that does not mean to say that he was the first.

[Iarwain]

Glad you posted, Saucepan! smilies/biggrin.gif

Now I have no further reason to post in this thread. Good-bye Everyone!


Iarwain

[Meoshi]

Perhaps it is better to say that Tolkien started the current boom of fantasy writings.

[ March 16, 2003: Message edited by: Meoshi ]

[InklingElf]

I quite agree with you Meoshi