Author Topic: EUOLogy #17 (Tolkien)  (Read 1908 times)

vadia

  • Level 3
  • ***
  • Posts: 47
  • Fell Points: 0
    • View Profile
EUOLogy #17 (Tolkien)
« on: February 20, 2007, 06:28:19 PM »
On http://www.brandonsanderson.com/article.php?id=22
Though the point about copying Tolkien is quite apt, I think that it is not Tolkien's fault at all.  Any forerunner is copied extensively until it can expand (then the expantions are also extensively copied etc.).  The only quesiton is does it have enough to carry itself and it's clones into an actual genre instead of disappearing in the night?
Tolkien was essentially the third tier of his craft -- first tier: proto-fantasy, Second tier: George MacDonald's generation and then Tolkien's generation.  It is a small wonder that Tolkien became the main foundation for the craft as perhaps the first book set in a wholy fantastic setting.  (mythology had fantastic and human together.)

The only thing that Tolkien may have done to increase the cloning is to put different well known aspects of mythology into a coherant whole instead of C.S. Lewis who merely hodge-podged together Narnia.  This allowed for a commonality which Narnia did not. 

Similarly Star Trek has the odd looking humans with a few cultural differences, but fundamentally just your next door Russian plague which bled over to Star wars and countless other Sci Fi series -- until somebody got the idea -- what if aliens actually acted alien (harder than you might think). 
Until Murder she wrote (not a technical term) and Hard Boiled mysteries most every mystery seemed to be the English variety -- the author seemed more interested in making the detective seem smart than give any real insight into what the detective was doing until the Crime lab shows the genre had only these three.

EUOL

  • Moderator
  • Level 58
  • *
  • Posts: 4708
  • Fell Points: 33
  • Mr. Prolific [tm]
    • View Profile
    • Brandon Sanderson dot com
Re: EUOLogy #17 (Tolkien)
« Reply #1 on: February 20, 2007, 06:37:30 PM »
You are, of course, quite right.  It's not Tolkien's fault at all--that's the intentionally inflammatory part of the essay.  It's the same kind of 'chastising' I give my wife for being so awesome that she makes everyone else look bad. 

Good thoughts.
http://www.BrandonSanderson.com

"Technically, I don't even have a brain."--Fellfrosch

The Jade Knight

  • Moderator
  • Level 39
  • *****
  • Posts: 2507
  • Fell Points: 1
  • Lord of the Absent-Minded
    • View Profile
    • Don't go here
Re: EUOLogy #17 (Tolkien)
« Reply #2 on: February 21, 2007, 11:43:49 AM »
I agree with many of the points you bring up, but you need to remember is that Tolkien has entered our modern mythology.  He has entered our Folklore.  Tolkien studied the mythologies of long ago, and from them derived Elves and Dwarves, which he brought to us.

Today, our storytelling is RPGs.  Our stories are about Tolkienesque Elves and Dwarves, not the Elves and Dwarves of 1000 years ago.  He took something long dead, and brought it back to life.  Just as Tolkien was brilliant, modern writers can be brilliant with Elves and Dwarves, but only if they're willing to step away from the canon and create like Tolkien did.

Who has created like Tolkien did, so richly?  I cannot think of a single writer.  In taking their shortcuts, they've made Elves and Dwarves and Wizards and Orcs cheap in the sense that we now think of them.  They're writing stories, and the races have just become props.

That's not how Professor Tolkien did it.  And maybe it's better for writing more books, I don't think Fantasy will produce anything like what he wrote while the focus is on writing books, and not on crafting a mythology.
"Never argue with a fool; they'll bring you down to their level, and then beat you with experience."

vadia

  • Level 3
  • ***
  • Posts: 47
  • Fell Points: 0
    • View Profile
Re: EUOLogy #17 (Tolkien)
« Reply #3 on: February 21, 2007, 06:54:22 PM »

Who has created like Tolkien did, so richly?  I cannot think of a single writer.  In taking their shortcuts, they've made Elves and Dwarves and Wizards and Orcs cheap in the sense that we now think of them.  They're writing stories, and the races have just become props.

That's not how Professor Tolkien did it.  And maybe it's better for writing more books, I don't think Fantasy will produce anything like what he wrote while the focus is on writing books, and not on crafting a mythology.

I'm not sure that is what makes writing so great or not
Rather greatness is the way that the author uses his writings -- I have seen a work which was quite purposefully based on Tolkien -- which can make one look at the world quite differently.  (Jacqueline Carey's Godslayer series)   
Alternatively Great writing makes (helps) one feel strong emotions -- and we don't imnsho need more excitement --  but the catharsis at the frustration of our own lives may be vital.

To make a Warbreaker analogy if when coming out of a book we feel like Vivieran (sp?) after exiting the slums and perhaps try to, like her, do something better that is a great book if not, well, I'm sure that we had entertainment, but fear that the book has something to improve on.

Personally, my favorite book has deeply effected my relationship with music -- impressive for a medium without sound, no?

dawncawley

  • Level 11
  • *
  • Posts: 462
  • Fell Points: 0
    • View Profile
Re: EUOLogy #17 (Tolkien)
« Reply #4 on: February 22, 2007, 04:25:06 AM »
I have only just read the article, so I got to read the response, and the new title and introduction, which I think are both very good.

I agree with the response in that Tolkein didn't ruin fantasy for me, but I was a mere 12 when I read The Hobbit, LotR came much later, it did make me more willing to give that kind of  "grown up" book a try. My dad was an avid Sci-fi/fantasy reader, and more than willing to cultivate this love he had for books in me. I still loved a good "reality/historical" novel, Gone with the Wind still being one of my favorites, but the fantasy genre took a bookish, not very popular girl to a realm of dragons, wizards and magic.

I have been very lucky in the fantasy that I chose, Anne McCaffery, Melanie Rawn, Tolkein (of course), Alice Borchardt (who is a bit more historical, but has a bit of magic in her books as well), and Brandon Sanderson (naturally, but a recent addition). All of these authors has something different to do with the magic systems, races, environments, and tone, and I love them all for those reasons.

Don't get me wrong, I like the Dragonlance books, and own most of them, but they are, to me, a more "traditional" type of fantasy. A magic system that is easy to grasp for the reader and races that are known to us, through Tolkein, before we ever open one of their books. This did not turn me off of these books, it made me more eager to seek them out, they were familiar to me. I love Ursula K. LeGuin's EarthSea,but I picked that up on a whim, and if I hadn't been in a second hand store at the time, I probably would not have and I would have missed out on fantastic journey, because it was a totally different fantasy than I had been reading at the time.

I may be an anomaly among fantasy readers, but I fear change in some ways, and welcome it in others. I love the originality that some authors have, EUOL being one of them, but I also love the Tolkein-esque writers for the familiarity, kind of like a comfy pair of shoes, that they allow me to have, even with a new author.