The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post

Kronos · 01-06-2004, 05:28 AM

On reading this thread there seems to be a body of opinion that states that;

1. Tolkien invented the (modern) fantasy genre
2. All fantasy is compelled to copy him

I am firmly of the opinion that both of these theories are wrong. Had the first stated that Tolkien popularised the fantasy genre then I would be able to agree but there is no way that he invented it.

Even with the addition of modern to the fantasy genre it is clear that Tolkien did not invent it. If anything Tolkien’s LOTR is the most deliberately archaic of the fantasy works out there, hardly modern in any sense. He himself would doubtless be insulted at the label modern being applied to him.

Nor did he invent fantasy in any other sense. Fantasy was around before Tolkien, whether it be the Wizard of Oz, Alice in Wonderland or even the Iliad, and it will be around long after him.
Robert E Howard was writing before Tolkien not to mention other writers such as Dunsany.
Peake’s Gormanghast was written at the same time that Tolkien was writing his works and in many ways is starting to become as much of an influence to current fantasy writers such as Mievelle. If anything Gormanghast is in some ways more original than LOTR, certainly it is not so obviously a rehash of myths dear to the author as LOTR and the associated works are.

There are some high profile fantasy books that copy LOTR though. Certainly Terry Brooks is a guilty candidate and the first book of the Wheel of Time is basically a rehash of elements of LOTR. It would be unfair to say that the work as a whole is a copy though. Certainly in the 10 or so books there is much that cannot be said to be inspired by LOTR. That is not to say that it is good though.

Move away from these authors and the originality becomes more apparent. Steven Erikson’s Malazan Book of the Fallen series is no where near a copy of LOTR. In fact in some ways it is too original and inventive for its own good, making it hard to keep a track on what is happening to whom and where.
George RR Martin’s A Song of Ice and Fire is far more closely related to the War of the Roses than to LOTR.
Phillip Pullman’s already mentioned His Dark Materials trilogy owes little if not nothing to LOTR and Moorcock’s works have consciously steered away from literature of the kind that LOTR represents.

There is little doubt that Tolkien did much to popularize fantasy but there is much that is original if one is willing to look around. Indeed there is much that is more original than the LOTR, not needing to rely on Dark Lords and the like.
There is also little doubt that Tolkien is a great influence on the fantasy genre, more so on the numerous crappy bulky trilogies churned out as the “next Tolkien” than on the better authors though.
Doubtless the fantasy market would be very different today had Tolkien not existed. Would it be better off though? That is a difficult question to answer but one that is interesting to consider. Perhaps it would be better off if we had a few less books wherein a world is threatened by a Dark Lord and an unlikely hero (often a country bumpkin) has to save the world over three books.

01-06-2004, 05:28 AM	#14
Kronos Animated Skeleton Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: England Posts: 47	On reading this thread there seems to be a body of opinion that states that; 1. Tolkien invented the (modern) fantasy genre 2. All fantasy is compelled to copy him I am firmly of the opinion that both of these theories are wrong. Had the first stated that Tolkien popularised the fantasy genre then I would be able to agree but there is no way that he invented it. Even with the addition of modern to the fantasy genre it is clear that Tolkien did not invent it. If anything Tolkien’s LOTR is the most deliberately archaic of the fantasy works out there, hardly modern in any sense. He himself would doubtless be insulted at the label modern being applied to him. Nor did he invent fantasy in any other sense. Fantasy was around before Tolkien, whether it be the Wizard of Oz, Alice in Wonderland or even the Iliad, and it will be around long after him. Robert E Howard was writing before Tolkien not to mention other writers such as Dunsany. Peake’s Gormanghast was written at the same time that Tolkien was writing his works and in many ways is starting to become as much of an influence to current fantasy writers such as Mievelle. If anything Gormanghast is in some ways more original than LOTR, certainly it is not so obviously a rehash of myths dear to the author as LOTR and the associated works are. There are some high profile fantasy books that copy LOTR though. Certainly Terry Brooks is a guilty candidate and the first book of the Wheel of Time is basically a rehash of elements of LOTR. It would be unfair to say that the work as a whole is a copy though. Certainly in the 10 or so books there is much that cannot be said to be inspired by LOTR. That is not to say that it is good though. Move away from these authors and the originality becomes more apparent. Steven Erikson’s Malazan Book of the Fallen series is no where near a copy of LOTR. In fact in some ways it is too original and inventive for its own good, making it hard to keep a track on what is happening to whom and where. George RR Martin’s A Song of Ice and Fire is far more closely related to the War of the Roses than to LOTR. Phillip Pullman’s already mentioned His Dark Materials trilogy owes little if not nothing to LOTR and Moorcock’s works have consciously steered away from literature of the kind that LOTR represents. There is little doubt that Tolkien did much to popularize fantasy but there is much that is original if one is willing to look around. Indeed there is much that is more original than the LOTR, not needing to rely on Dark Lords and the like. There is also little doubt that Tolkien is a great influence on the fantasy genre, more so on the numerous crappy bulky trilogies churned out as the “next Tolkien” than on the better authors though. Doubtless the fantasy market would be very different today had Tolkien not existed. Would it be better off though? That is a difficult question to answer but one that is interesting to consider. Perhaps it would be better off if we had a few less books wherein a world is threatened by a Dark Lord and an unlikely hero (often a country bumpkin) has to save the world over three books.