The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post

davem · 02-18-2005, 01:59 PM

I wonder if it is simply a matter of creating a complex, believable, secondary world. I find, for example, the 'worlds' created by Hope Mirlees in Lud in the Mist, ER Eddison in The Worm Ouroboros & Mistress of Mistresses, & the numerous secondary worlds of William Moris & George MacDonald (all published pre-Tolkien) to be quite believable while I'm reading the books, but they don't have the 'depth' of Tolkien's works or carry the same sense of 'reality'.

Tolkien stated on numerous occasions that he wasn't 'inventing' but attempting to discover 'what really happened'. I think that's what I feel when I read his writings - that I'm not reading a made up story. Middle earth is the onlySecondary world I've come across that I feel really 'exists' in some way. That's the reason I don't bother much with 'fantasy'.

I have no idea how Tolkien managed to do what he did. I do know that no-one, before or since, has managed to do the same thing as effectively - my opinion, of course. I suppose that might account for my disappointment with the movies. They didn't convey that sense of 'reality' I find in the books.

So, I suppose the 'impact' Tolkien has had on Fantasy is the standard he set. Its an odd thing, & kind of 'anti-evolutionary' in a way - the greatest product of the Fantasy genre was the first to appear, & all the subsequent works in that genre have been attempting to reach it's 'heights'.

02-18-2005, 01:59 PM	#11
davem Illustrious Ulair Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties Posts: 4,240	I wonder if it is simply a matter of creating a complex, believable, secondary world. I find, for example, the 'worlds' created by Hope Mirlees in Lud in the Mist, ER Eddison in The Worm Ouroboros & Mistress of Mistresses, & the numerous secondary worlds of William Moris & George MacDonald (all published pre-Tolkien) to be quite believable while I'm reading the books, but they don't have the 'depth' of Tolkien's works or carry the same sense of 'reality'. Tolkien stated on numerous occasions that he wasn't 'inventing' but attempting to discover 'what really happened'. I think that's what I feel when I read his writings - that I'm not reading a made up story. Middle earth is the onlySecondary world I've come across that I feel really 'exists' in some way. That's the reason I don't bother much with 'fantasy'. I have no idea how Tolkien managed to do what he did. I do know that no-one, before or since, has managed to do the same thing as effectively - my opinion, of course. I suppose that might account for my disappointment with the movies. They didn't convey that sense of 'reality' I find in the books. So, I suppose the 'impact' Tolkien has had on Fantasy is the standard he set. Its an odd thing, & kind of 'anti-evolutionary' in a way - the greatest product of the Fantasy genre was the first to appear, & all the subsequent works in that genre have been attempting to reach it's 'heights'. __________________ “Everything was an object. If you killed a dwarf you could use it as a weapon – it was no different to other large heavy objects."