Originality in fantasy Post-Tolkien

[Gothmog]

Originally Posted by Eruwen

It amazes me sometimes how much is in Tolkien's writings of Middle Earth. Whenever I sit down to read or write, even when it comes to reading the Bible, I find things that resemble Tolkien.

I doubt that the Bible is inspired by Tolkien

It's true that many of the fantasy stories written after LotR are similiar, but I thinks it's unevitable that authors get inspired by Tolkiens world. They're not copying (well, there are those who do) and I think they deserve full respect for they're work, which is unique for them. OK, they borrow some stuff from the master himself, mr JRRT, but almost every book ever written is similiar to something else.

To say that all fantasy-writers are copying Tolkien is like saying that every story copies from the great ancient play-writers that made masterpieces like The Oddysée (is it spelled like that in Eng. ?) or Oidiphus etc etc...

Just my opinion

[Lush]

To elaborate on something Imladris already mentioned: there is nothing new under the sun. The challenge that writers face, in whatever they write, is in taking something familiar and making it their own, and making it readable, clever, fun, deep, you name it.

For example, you can take "The Wasteland" and chew out Eliot for just clumping together a bunch of references to other writers and peppering the whole thing with a little Modernist gloom and doom. That would be missing the point. Of course Eliot was playing off his predecessors, but "The Wasteland" is deeper than that, because it makes you think of things in a new way; it touches you in a new way; it it rattles and excites and horrifies you in a new way.

The somebody like Adrienne Rich comes along and is clearly influenced by "The Wasteland" and Eliot's other works, but, through the strength of her talent, has something new to add.

This, I believe, is evident in pre- and post-Tolkien movements in literature, with many different evolving themes intersecting. The results are usually worthless (at least, in my not so humble opinion), but that has more to do with the fact that most literature is worthless in general.

Yet there is always that smattering of books that are worth your time; these are the books that, according to Vladimir Nabokov's rule of thumb regarding "great" literature, cannot be read, they can only be re-read. As the Danielle Steeles of the world get richer, there are still writers out there who produce awesome, important stuff that our grandkids will hopefully be reading (unless, um, we destroy the world 'till then, but I try to be optimistic).

And I would gladly place J.K. Rowling into that pile of authors that saw some things in Tolkien they could play off of and did it wiith style, grace, and a good sense of humour no less.

[Lobelia]

Okay, guys, here's a suggestion: read Diana Wynne Jones' TOUGH GUIDE TO FANTASYLAND. Very funny, and it has a great dig at all the cliches in fantasy. Stew. Inns. The red-haired big-breasted villainess. And so on.

What's really a shame is that people often accuse Tolkien of cliches when he did some things that are now standard in fantasy before they became cliches. If Sword of Shanarra looks familiar, it's because the publishers commissioned Terry Brooks to write a Tolkien-style book. It was a cash-in. I remember buying the book when it first came out and throwing it across the room in fury. I couldn't finish it. I'm a minority, of course; he's been wildly successful for 20 years.

Oh, and read Bored of the Rings - it's great fun and quite affectionate. It's a classic.

Yes, there is indeed a common source for *good* fantasy, but, guys, there are also a lot of rip-offs out there and nothing is more likely to put me off than reading a rave on a book cover comparing it with Tolkien. I love fantasy, but I like it individual. Barbara Hambly. Jennifer Fallon. George R.R.Martin. Guy Gavriel Kay. Diana Wynne Jones - the list goes on. None of them has to imitate. If you have read a lot, you should be able to discern the difference between common sources and rip-off. Good characters you can care about - that's what makes the difference. Tolkien knew that, but so does any good fantasy writer.

[HerenIstarion]

being in general agreement with the "no new story under the sun" line, I nevertheless, would refute:

it seems as if people view Tolkien as the king of all fantasy -- and that's simply not true

With quite an opposite maxim (but for one word in it) as "Tolkien is the king of all modern fantasy". He gave the whole genre enormous push, pulling it out of oblivion or, rather, creating it and shaping it as a branch of modern literature. Prior to that, fantasy was the field of scholars, on one extreme (with Golden Bough and what not) and field of nurses and mentors of young children on another extreme, considered either very serious reasearch material or not serius read at all for people above ten. Abundant flow of yearly books (with boasty maxims of "as good as JRRT at his height" on the back of their covers) gives some nourishment for musing oupon him being the said royal person of fantasy...

[Keeper of Dol Guldur]

I think inclusion of dwarves, elves, wizards and goblins are what make fantasy fantasy, and therefore can't count as ripoffs, because without them it wouldn't be fantasy anyway . . . I do see a lot of characters and themes based on them repeated.

For starters, dwarves are always depicted as greedy, grumpy, gruff little guys.

The very idea of dwarves is short, bearded, tool wielding men who mine underground . . .

The very idea of elves are forest dwellers with pointy ears, although graceful, spirtual and godly creatures are pretty LOTR driven . . .

The epic quest theme is what I think is repeated too often. There's almost always a symbolic heirloom, a dark tyrant and a journey that lasts forever.

What somebody needs to do, is set other genres in a fantasy setting, like a psychological thriller about a dragon-slayer, or a vigilante story about a band of werewolves . . . or the troubles of a some sociopaths who just happen to be vampire hunters . . . or even make a fantasy into a drastic allegorical satire of society (which Tolkien adamantly was not doing, but somebody really should go for it, with that in mind).

[HerenIstarion]

To Keeper:

But the very ideas you depict as necessary for fantasy, are very indo-european, or even narrower, European ideas (or archetypes, as some prefer to put it )

But for Tolkien (and overflowing stream of his followers), they would presumably remain European folk lore. Now, what we have throughout the world, they are becoming universal ideas. And universal as Tolkien gave them - elves tall, star-eyed noble people, and fair number of other cliches too. If you look through the list of our members, you'll find that a lot of them is from Malaysia, Indonesia or elsewhere which do not have the background you seem to look at so obvious adn natural. Not to go very far, I for myself may be quite a good exapmle. Georgian mythos in no way has bearded dwarves or star-eyed elves, yet I'm affected to the extent that concept of bearded short guy under the mountain is my own already. I recognize archetypes which would have been blank for my grandfather thanks to Tolkien, and him mostly.

(BTW, That is why it is so hard to translate Tolkien into non European languages, for Germans, Dutch and Norwegians take some conventions for granted which would look just very strange for Japanese (assuming he/she never heard of Tolkien, or read it in his adulthood with no previous hint as of European mythos)

And even with his enormous popularity, Tolkien is often giving way to newly born American urban mythos, which is, may I say so, mightily exported from USA along with the general culture export taking place this last fifty years (ah, Hollywood) - with lot of 'man' suffixed epic heroes (i.e Spiderman, Superman etc)

But for Tolkien (not position arguable, but merely strong feeling on my part nevertheless), those would become universal ideas instead, and for all their value, for me it would be a sad thing

[Bêthberry]

Good point, I think, HI, to point out that Tolkien worked specifically within European traditions of myth to create his fantasy. This makes me wonder what forms of fantasy, if any, exist in other cultures that might not have been influenced (at least until recently) by Tolkien. Can it be said that the genre of fantasy exists in, say, Chinese, Japanese and Indian literatures?

There is also another way to think about this comment from Keeper, which perhaps reflects much of the thought here that the 'content' or type of characters is what marks fantasy:

I think inclusion of dwarves, elves, wizards and goblins are what make fantasy fantasy, and therefore can't count as ripoffs, because without them it wouldn't be fantasy anyway . . . I do see a lot of characters and themes based on them repeated.

In this regard, Tolkien's essay "On Fairy-Stories" is very interesting, for Tokien specifically says that fantasy is not based on content, on the simple inclusion of elves or beasts. Part of his arguement is as follows:

The definition of a fairy-story--what it is, or what it should be--does not, then, depend on any definition or historical account of elf or fairy, but upon the nature of Faërie: the Perilous Realm itself, and the air that blows in that country.... The magic of Faërie is not an end in itself, its virtue is in its operations: among these are the satisfaction of certain primordial human desires. One of these desires is to survey the depths of space and time. Another is (as will be seen) to hold communion with other living things. A story may thus deal with the satisfaction of these desires, with or without the operation of either machine or magic, and in proportion as it succeeds it will approach the quality and have the flavour of fairy-story.

Perhaps one way of thinking about how other writers use fantasy is to consider what they add to this idea, or whether they ignore it.

[Olorin_TLA]

This tradition doesn't realy exist in Europe outside of Spain, but in Spain and Latin America the genre of magic-realism has been their "fantasy" for aaages. So fantasy, as you quoted, doesn't need Elves etc to be fantasy...it just needs to have a spark of the extra-ordinary (aka, fantastci).

[Lobelia]

Originally Posted by Keeper of Dol Goldur

What somebody needs to do, is set other genres in a fantasy setting, like a psychological thriller about a dragon-slayer, or a vigilante story about a band of werewolves . . . or the troubles of a some sociopaths who just happen to be vampire hunters . . . or even make a fantasy into a drastic allegorical satire of society (which Tolkien adamantly was not doing, but somebody really should go for it, with that in mind).

Great idea, Keeper! Do it!

You'd probably like Parke Godwin - his novel about Beowulf has great psychological depth regarding Beowulf's relationship with his father, and presents a sympathetic Grendel. I can't name any books of the kind you suggest above, though I'm pretty sure someone has done all of them at some stage. But they're not that common.

[HerenIstarion]

That happened recently with a book I shall not name for fear of being flamed. But it has more direct relations to Tolkien's respective works than I have ever see. I get so angry with that peice of work.

Please tell us, for I at least am very curious. We could make a lovely discussion around it, without flaming, I believe (or is it that you are the author? Than, if you feel it is too private an affair, I withdraw my bidding)

MYTH series; I can't remember the author at the moment.

Robert Asprin. Quite good, indeed

[Olorin_TLA]

I know what you mean, Saraphim, I'm an aspiring author too, and it's hard to get away from Tolkien, even if it's just coincidental similarities! (For instance, wanting to avoid using the name High Elves (my Elves are getting too different now in many ways from "fantasy" Elves that it's odd for me to use the term tho) I went for Golden Elves, because I was stuck for a better term. Any way, at one point a whole bunch of refugees move into a wood, cohabiting with the people there to form the Golden Wood. I realised I'd just named a wood the Golden Wood, and gave up trying to escape fro Tolkein's shadow. ;)

Originally Posted by Keeper of Dol Goldur

What somebody needs to do, is set other genres in a fantasy setting, like a psychological thriller about a dragon-slayer, or a vigilante story about a band of werewolves . . . or the troubles of a some sociopaths who just happen to be vampire hunters . . . or even make a fantasy into a drastic allegorical satire of society (which Tolkien adamantly was not doing, but somebody really should go for it, with that in mind).

Well Pratchett's got the last point covered, and covered well. :)

But why should they set out to be a "thriller" or any other genre, in a fantasy setting? If a fantasy story has vigilantes in them, or psychological thriller-like areas, (and they do) it's because that's how the plot and characters develop, not because the author said, "I'm going to take a stock-plot and just change the setting" - which generally is as bad as an imitation of LotR, because they're just imitating 2 things now. ;)

About the Dark Lord effect...yes, it is an extremely easy thing to imitate. And yet, was Tolkien the first to use it? I's just that it deosn't seem like the kind of thing that could have not been aroudn forever, yeet I can't think of any thing close, unless you take the archeenemy of a novel, scuh as Moriarty, as being a mslal version of a Dark Lord figure. Hoom hom.

[Keeper of Dol Guldur]

Keeper, your definition of fantasy is narrower than Paris Hilton's waist (for all of you living under a rock, that's pretty durn narrow).

I'll admit, that it was a pretty narrow definition. I realise there's a lot more to fantasy. The reflection of yourself in varying extremes expressed and showcased in their sort of incarnate races seems to be a part (take dwarves, as an example of the greediness and selfishness people are capable of, although not as the absolute example of it, just an extreme form. The same can be true of orcs and their representation of hatred, etc...). Also, fantasy does seem to be in the mindset of discovering the ability in yourself to overcome something, whether mental or physical. And there's a lot more to it, clearly. While Tolkien didn't want to use it in any allegorical sense, fantasy can be used in that way very, very effectively (although the same can be said for more than just fantasy, naturally).

Anyway, it just seemed to me that (which ties in to another reply) it's the mythic races and creatures that are repeated over and again, but a lot of people have a lot of different things to express with those characters. (and when Tolkien's ideas and themes are re-used, that's when it's wicked, wicked noticeable).

Great idea, Keeper! Do it!

Already did, I wrote a 12 page (which is still unfinished) short story called "Beneath Every Cover" that got be some credit in high-school anyway, and got me into a writer's convention. That's nothing huge, but it goes with my suggestion; all the fantasy I write is to point out society's problems on a small scale. The entire setting of BEC was in a Prancing Pony-esque tavern (there were huge differences ... it was in the seedy side of a port town, and the whole of the patrons were crooked captains of the guard and thieves. My only elf was a bigot).

Anyway, it was a breath of fresh air for me to write it, and I plan on doing more.

Anyway, I have read some good fantasy that really put different spins on our tried and true elements and alluded to different themes. Weis and Hickman's "Death Gate Cycle" was good, it was about a warmonger named Haplo who thought he was a demigod coming to grips with the fact he was no better than a mere human or dwarf, or his mortal enemy and equally powerful rival, for those who haven't read it. I recommend it, since the world is split into different worlds in it, and each place he visits has completely different interpretations of elves, humans, dwarves and dragons ...

And who is the real enemy is the biggest surprise ...

That's my recommendation for those of you who want less cliched fantasy, because I think that's where the problem lies - the cliches.

[Lhundulinwen]

I agree with Keeper on that one- to make good fiction of any kind, take one characteristic and emulate it. And showing one of societies many problems is a great way to incorpoate a theme. Is "Death Gate Cycle" a novel? It sounds interesting.

Oh, and one more thing. This is just my pet peeve, and one of those things I get really close to being a motivational speaker about, so just bear with me on this one-
Just because you aren't published or have published very little, you ARE a writer, not an aspiring writer as long as you have written something just because you wanted to lately. (not counting high school english assignments- or college!)