Do most fantasy novel nowadays have traceable elements of Tolkienism in them?

[blantyr]

I'd also note that much of fantasy writing has hopped off the Tolkien themes entirely. Modern urban fantasy set in the current day is awfully common. Charles de Lint with Moonheart and many similar books might be an early proponent of the subgenera. Of late, and more cliched, we have had Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Twilight with it's vampire werewolf conflict. The leading character is often female and a quite competent combatant. There is generally a strong romance element, borrowing the love-hate style familiar to those who have touched regency romance. If werewolves and vampires have been over done, one can find angels, demons, furies and any other similar sort of beast. The powers and abilities of the heroine might change, but the themes and style of the work doesn't. I've recently discovered mermaids have become a popular theme in the young adult market.

There are still books exploring the fringes of the territory established by Tolkien, but an awful lot of the market is chasing an entirely different set of cliches. I suspect many in this group might find Tolkienesque writing a higher class of thing than the typical modern vampire story, but younger readers, judging from sales and market share, might find the urban fantasy style work speaks more to the world they are growing up in.

While there is common ground between Frodo and Buffy, I don't see the two styles as aspects of the same genera. The rules and traditions seem distinctly different.

[Haramu]

Originally Posted by blantyr

I'd also note that much of fantasy writing has hopped off the Tolkien themes entirely. Modern urban fantasy set in the current day is awfully common. Charles de Lint with Moonheart and many similar books might be an early proponent of the subgenera. Of late, and more cliched, we have had Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Twilight with it's vampire werewolf conflict. The leading character is often female and a quite competent combatant. There is generally a strong romance element, borrowing the love-hate style familiar to those who have touched regency romance. If werewolves and vampires have been over done, one can find angels, demons, furies and any other similar sort of beast. The powers and abilities of the heroine might change, but the themes and style of the work doesn't. I've recently discovered mermaids have become a popular theme in the young adult market.

There are still books exploring the fringes of the territory established by Tolkien, but an awful lot of the market is chasing an entirely different set of cliches. I suspect many in this group might find Tolkienesque writing a higher class of thing than the typical modern vampire story, but younger readers, judging from sales and market share, might find the urban fantasy style work speaks more to the world they are growing up in.

While there is common ground between Frodo and Buffy, I don't see the two styles as aspects of the same genera. The rules and traditions seem distinctly different.

Well said! I couldn't agree more and so I have nothing else to add because you had taken every word out of my mouth.

[Nerwen]

Reading this thread, though, I fear we are perhaps in danger of trying to talk a problem out of existence. Because, honestly, there really are thousands of books out there that do consist largely of just the kind of unimaginative cut-and-paste exercise described by the OP- which is not the same thing as "being influenced by" or "having elements in common".

[blantyr]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Reading this thread, though, I fear we are perhaps in danger of trying to talk a problem out of existence. Because, honestly, there really are thousands of books out there that do consist largely of just the kind of unimaginative cut-and-paste exercise described by the OP- which is not the same thing as "being influenced by" or "having elements in common".

I believe Theodore Sturgeon was once told that ninety percent of science fiction is crap. He responded with the claim that ninety percent of anything is crap. We could argue on the ninety percent number, but, sure, an awful lot of fiction might fit the unimaginative cut-and-paste description. I don't know that either the Tolkienesque or modern urban fantasy camp has that much of an edge over the other in this regard.

One might write in either tradition without adding to it, but if the characters feel real and the interactions between the characters feels fresh, it might still be art.

[Morthoron]

In a different artistic context, bassist Billy Cox made this reference about modern guitarists:

"There are those who admit being influenced by Jimi Hendrix, and those who try to pretend they aren't."

It is difficult to argue Mr. Cox's reasoning, particularly when a preponderance of great guitarists admit such a debt.

In regards to late 20th century/early 21st century fantasy authors, I would have to say the same rationale applies to Tolkien. This goes far beyond the stylistic approach to fantasy novels, the continuing popularity of the fantasy genre is due in greater part to Tolkien's Middle-earth. There is no other logical manner to explain the ongoing phenomenon. Simply, the genre would not be the same without Tolkien's influence. Michael Moorcock be damned.

A secondary influence, particularly in regards to Arthurian cycle fantasies, may be given to T.H. White's The Once and Future King, which humanized the unbelievably chivalric and stiff paragons of Thomas Malory, indelibly imbuing humor, sadness and incredible depth to characters too virtuous for their own good.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by blantyr

I'd also note that much of fantasy writing has hopped off the Tolkien themes entirely. Modern urban fantasy set in the current day is awfully common. Charles de Lint with Moonheart and many similar books might be an early proponent of the subgenera. Of late, and more cliched, we have had Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Twilight with it's vampire werewolf conflict. The leading character is often female and a quite competent combatant. There is generally a strong romance element, borrowing the love-hate style familiar to those who have touched regency romance. If werewolves and vampires have been over done, one can find angels, demons, furies and any other similar sort of beast. The powers and abilities of the heroine might change, but the themes and style of the work doesn't. I've recently discovered mermaids have become a popular theme in the young adult market.

Note - Buffy and Bella are worlds apart, and it's not werewolves in Buffy, it's demons.

Counting TV as 'fiction', which it is, the BBC's Being Human centres on the relationships and conflicts of vampires, werewolves and ghosts and is anything but cliched. I've not seen the American alternate version but the original British one is marvellous and wholly original (and sadly ending for good next week), managing to be both hilarious and horrific at the same time.

Also note that almost all 'supernatural' fictions seem to have contemporary settings, as indeed did the daddy of them all, Bram Stoker's Dracula. This is because they all share that common theme - they walk among us. Quite a lot different to traditional fantasy written by Tolkien, George RR Martin, Ursula le Guin, Mervyn Peake etc. Fantasy worlds are about escape, even where they are utterly grim, however sometimes the two collide - see Neil Gaiman for more.

I don't think it can be denied that Tolkien is an influence on almost or even all fantasy writers who followed him, whether they graciously admit this (like George RR Martin and JK Rowling) or claim they are nothing like Tolkien (see Terry Pratchett and Phillip Pullman). There are absolutely masses of books (and TV) out there that are 'original' though, in as much as any fiction which uses long standing tropes and myths can be said to be 'original'.