[Mister Underhill]

Aiwendil: What an interesting analogy between genetic mutation and the evolution of innovative narrative techniques! I won’t defend the artistic merits of “I, Jedi”; my point was simply that mainstream fantasy – and what is Star Wars but science-fantasy? – is so conservative that the simple technique of writing from the first person, hardly revolutionary, is seen as a huge creative risk. Compare the innovation in related genres: Wiliam Gibson took sci-fi by storm and more or less pioneered a whole subgenre, cyberpunk, through sheer style. You seem to have at least passing familiarity with the oeuvre of Stephen King. He has taken horror to new levels by pushing the envelope of narrative technique. Examples include the long, unbroken, monologue style of Dolores Claiborne; structuring the novel It like an opera; alternating first person and third person points-of-view in Christine; genre-busting in his Dark Tower series; and his exercise in the endless renewability of story: using the same basic premise and characters to produce two different novels, The Regulators and Desperation. Where is this sort of innovation and energy in modern fantasy?

My supposition is this: there is a Platonic essence called "art"; this essence must exist in all media that we call the "arts".

I’m not formally acquainted with Plato’s theories of art. Any chance you could summarize what that “essence” is? I seem to recall that Plato posited a strong moral component to ideal Art, but perhaps I’m completely wrong about that.

littlemanpoet: It is not we readers or aspiring authors who are cynical, but the publishing market; after all, it is a market, and markets are by nature cynical: they seek profit at the expense of those things they think will hurt profit, even if it is better art. That is cynical. I'd be interested to learn if you do have first hand knowledge of the publishing industry that leads you to have greater hope than my experience has turned up.

I think there’s a presupposition here and in Stephanos’s most recent reply that a work that is as good as Tolkien’s would be perceived to be unmarketable or unprofitable. I disagree. Tolkien is, after all, a billion dollar industry.

I have first hand experience with the film industry and some experience with the publishing industry. I agree that both are largely cynical, profit-driven establishments. But my experience has shown me this: quality always rises. Quality always finds a home. Believe me, publishing is a creative nirvana compared to the film industry. You won’t find any seminal works being published by TSR, sure – but I firmly believe that if there was a work equivalent to LotR in quality and power making the rounds, it would find a home, it would win contests, it would break through somewhere, somehow. Quality always rises, eventually.

I think neither the former or latter posits warrant an affirmative. The fantasy genre bears no flaw, nor is the form so difficult. We have witnessed the Harry Potter phenomenon - like the book or dislike it, Rowling tapped a motherlode in many readers, young and old.

Quite right – though I would counter with the old popularity vs. quality argument. Will Potter stand the test of time? Does Rowling’s work sate the hunger felt by Tolkien fans for new epic fantasy? I personally have found the Potter books that I’ve read to be enjoyable, but hardly seminal or equivalent to Tolkien.

I think 'reality' would be a better word than 'world' - semantics, perhaps. Perhaps it was Tolkien who spoke of an 'inner consistency of reality', maybe others, but I think that phrase needs to be part of the definition.

I agree with this revision, since it opens the door to fantasy work that is set in our world but in an alternate or modified reality.

Nevertheless the constant is so wideranging that the lack of new seminal works is deplorable.

Agreed!