[Aiwendil]

I'm writing this after reflecting on this year's Oscars, where the LotR movie sadly failed to pick up the most prestigious awards. I don't want to debate the merits of individual films or performances, but to suggest that perhaps the 'fantasy' genre (as opposed to Disney or Pixar) is still not taken as seriously as 'proper' movies or literature.

This is definitely the case. Modern critics still tend to consider Tolkien juvenile garbage. This is because modern critics are biased toward character-based, ironic works in a modern style. LotR is a plot-based, heroic work in the style of an ancient epic -and its imitators tend to have the same style, if not the quality.

Maybe you could argue that it is accepted, except by a cultural establishment that is still snobbish or elitist. Or that there is still an association in some people's minds between fantasy and fairy tales ie. being childish and escapist (I'm not sure I believe this). Or that stereotypes of fantasy aficionados - as beardy fashion disasters, maladjusted gothic teens, or anal-retentive sociopathic gamers - are still prevalent.

All these things are undoubtedly true, at least to some extent.

No, I'm not rehashing the "Book of the century" thread (I already have enough enemies).

I wouldn't call you an enemy! Let's say "adversary" . . .

And what I'm asking is this ... are there valid criticisms of the genre and its protagonists?

Well, I think we're actually in agreement here. Most post-Tolkien fantasy is simply terrible. Few of Tolkien's imitators seem to understand what it was that made Tolkien's work great. They imitate only the superficial elements (which happen to be the elements most hated by the literary establishment). Perhaps this is because it is difficult to define exactly what made Tolkien great. Was it the fantasy setting? No, this has been tried by every one of his imitators with little success. Was it his attention to detail? No, many of his imitators have carefully constructed worlds of their own just as Tolkien did. Was it the phililogical element of his world? No, many authors have invented languages, or pieces of languages, for their worlds.

I am convinced that the difference is simply this: Tolkien took his mythology seriously. Creating a world was not something Tolkien forced himself to do; it was not something he did for money; it was not something he did to entertain others (though this was an important byproduct.) It was something he did because he wanted to, and because he believed that there is power in such myths.

Robert Jordan has churned out some eight or nine (last time I checked) Wheel of Time novels. I read the first one, and I admit that I enjoyed it somewhat. It was well-written; the characters were decently portrayed; it had an interesting plot. But it lacked a heart. I felt like I was reading a novel - a book that someone had written to be sold. The action in the book didn't feel important. When Robert Jordan writes (and the same is true of other Tolkien-imitators), he is writing pure fiction. He is creating a charade, a pleasant falsehood. This is the way most authors write; they think that their works have no inherent truth or meaning, unless it be conscious allegory.

Tolkien, of course, knew that Middle-earth was not physically real. But he felt that it was, on some level, real enough to be important. One gets the sense that JRRT himself was proud, for instance, of the deeds of Beren. I never got the sense that Robert Jordan felt particularly strongly about Rand.

Of course, the problem with modern fantasy is different from the problem seen by critics in Tolkien. They dislike the genre of fantasy in general. It is therefore a mistake to confuse criticism of LotR with criticism of Tolkien-imitators.

It is also, I think, a mistake to confuse fantasy and science fiction. The former was, if not invented, certainly redefined by Tolkien; subsequent fantasy has consisted almost entirely of Tolkien imitators. Science fiction, on the other hand, is not dominated by any single figure.