EUOLogy #17

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

reference: http://www.timewastersguide.com/view.php?id=944

You've ruined me Tolkien!

Not to wholly disagree, but I think that Tolkien, by introducing a new genre, got us thinking in the right direction. I also don't know that I'd say it was the first example of completely new worlds. Certainly is was further apart than Narnia, which had the same animals, only in a less fallen state, and also was tied directly to religious principles. However, Conan, although supposedly a much earlier age of Earth and using many of the same peoples and cultures, at least in terms of names, I think is nearly as distant from the real Earth as Middle Earth was.

I think there were problems with creativity in the history, since then, but that's the problem with genius. How many Beatles immitators do we still get? Heck, Oasis was constantly compared to the Beatles,  but when you look at their music, it's nothing revolutionary or groundbreaking like Lennon-McCartney-Harrison-Starr were, it just sounds like the Liverpool quartet. But we still got wholly original music in comparable veins at the same time.

The point of my side trip there, is that I don't think a creative genius 40-50 years ahead of their time necessarily destroys the creativity of the culture. There had to be other social factors that contributed to the authorial need to copy rather than create. I would look at the marketing climate, the increasingly plebian reading market, and so on before I made conclusions on this.

[Lieutenant Kije]

There's a healthy chance that if Tolkien hadn't written what he did when he did you might not have even written your heresy today, EUOL.  

[Lieutenant Kije]

Now that I think about it, there's a 100% chance, because everything you said was about Tolkien...but, I think you catch my drift.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

This retraction has been brought to you by foot-in-mouth dedoerant.

[Skar]

I borrowed a book from EUOL (still have it by the way) by Terry Brooks on writing.
In it Brooks tells the story of how he set out to copy Tolkien and how Lin Carter, a senior editor at some publisher, bought his work (Shannara) because it was "just like" Tolkien.  They wanted to fill the niche, meet the marketing demand for more of the same.  

My contribution is this: attempts to copy Tolkien mostly turned out the same way all copying does, really badly.  I wanted to read stuff as good as Tolkien's and following the same principles, new world, unique races and characters but finally choked on the crap I found. (Brook's attempt to copy Tolkien was absolutely horrible but some of his other, slightly more original stuff is at least readable.)

Nearly all the Tolkien copies I found to read were exactly what they set out to be, copies.  They were grainy and the colors didn't quite match.  Painful.

So I disagree that anyone did a decent job of copying Tolkien (Dennis L. McKiernan comes close but he does so through near plagiarism) but I am also very thankful that people are finally starting to copy the underlying principles that made Tolkein so good.  Truly new and unique worlds.  I think Brandon's brand of fantasy will fill this new, more enlightened, niche very well.

[stacer]

I also don't know that I'd say it was the first example of completely new worlds. Certainly is was further apart than Narnia, which had the same animals, only in a less fallen state, and also was tied directly to religious principles. However, Conan, although supposedly a much earlier age of Earth and using many of the same peoples and cultures, at least in terms of names, I think is nearly as distant from the real Earth as Middle Earth was.

I agree on that. I think that even if it's a world similar to ours, it's creating a new world in which magic (or whatever) works. I think the need to copy comes more out of the thinking that if something works, use it till it doesn't anymore. You get all sorts of copycatting in literature and film--the thing that's big now becomes the new trend. A lot of mainstream publishers are jumping on the fantasy bandwagon because of Harry Potter. Some of the new fantasy is really quite good, but some isn't. Same thing, I think.

But I do agree that there were too many writers who just copied Tolkien, rather than following in his footsteps of invention.

[Lieutenant Kije]

I think that it's unfair to imply that if Tolkien didn't write his stuff, the same shlocky copycats who did write fantasy novels would have produced anything of any more value than what they did.  

If Tolkien didn't write his stuff:
a) we'd be without Tolkien's stuff, which is like robbing the art world of Da Vinci or Michaelangelo (imo)
b) it would have taken the fantasy genre much longer to get to the level of acceptance and quality that it is at today (imo)
c) the same shlocky copycats would have copied whoever else came first

[Fellfrosch]

I think EUOL's point, and I'm inclined to agree with him, is that the schlocky copycats would have been forced to come up with original material and thus develop their own skills (Brooks is a good example of this, as he gets better and better the more he writes and the farther he gets from Tolkien's shadow).

My trouble with this article is that it's not really a new argument (authors like China Mieville have been saying for years that Tolkien is detrimental to fantasy), nor does it really take us anywhere--we know that Tolkien's shadow warps the fantasy genre, so now what?

[Spriggan]

We convince publishers that singing Barberians are the new "tolken".

[EUOL]

To SE:

I also don't know that I'd say it was the first example of completely new worlds. Certainly is was further apart than Narnia, which had the same animals, only in a less fallen state, and also was tied directly to religious principles. However, Conan, although supposedly a much earlier age of Earth and using many of the same peoples and cultures, at least in terms of names, I think is nearly as distant from the real Earth as Middle Earth was.

I disagree.  It's not just about distance, it's about completeness.  What I don't think Howard did (neither did Lewis) was worldbuild economy, culture, history, psychology, and physics.  At least, not on the extent Tolkien did.  

To Kije:

There's a healthy chance that if Tolkien hadn't written what he did when he did you might not have even written your heresy today, EUOL.

Well, if he hadn't written LotR, I certainly couldn't have written an essay about it.  But, I think I understand what you mean.  Would I, as a fantasy author, exist today if it weren't for Tolkien?  I honestly can't answer.  One side of me says I wouldn't--that the genre would be less popular and less viable a source of income.

However, a large part of me wonders if that wouldn't be a good thing.  Fantasy might not have gotten a lot of the bad literary press that it did.  There might be a small group of very creative people slowly working out what Tolkien did.  And, though it might have taken longer, I think the genre would have been on stronger a footing when it finally came unto its own.  

c) the same shlocky copycats would have copied whoever else came first

This is the main point I disagree with on this entire thread.  By saying this, you seem to imply that what Tolkien did wasn't that great--which is very different from the other things you've said.

Tolkien didn't just get copied because he was successful.  You see lot of copycats of successful works, as has been pointed out.  The difference is, none of these copycats have become the STAPLE of the genre.  

I don't think that whoever would have been 'first' after Tolkien would have had near the impact he did.  We have the writings of those people--and none of them are as long a leap as Tolkien's work.  He wasn't just good, he was AMAZINGLY better than everyone else.  On a level of genius that we only see once a century, if that often.  Nobody else's writing would have warped the genre like his did.


Now, to everyone (Mostly Skar and Kije):

I don't think you can dismiss the 'copycats' as easily as you have.  Donaldson is no 'shlock.'  He is a brilliant master of prose and characterization.  LeGuin is no 'shlock.'  Yet, both of their foundational series were blown off course by the all-powerful Tolkien storm.  Instead of being allowed to develop naturally, they were forced to deal with an external pressure on their creativity.  

The power of Tolkien's work was that even the good, original writers couldn't escape its taint.  

[EUOL]

Fell

My trouble with this article is that it's not really a new argument (authors like China Mieville have been saying for years that Tolkien is detrimental to fantasy), nor does it really take us anywhere--we know that Tolkien's shadow warps the fantasy genre, so now what?

I've never heard China talk about this before, nor have I heard anyone else--and I've been to a good number of cons.  Now, I've heard people talk a lot about how fantasy shouldn't be elves and dwarves, but I've never heard anyone specifically say that Tolkien was too good for his time.  That doesn't mean it hasn't been said, but it does mean that the topic is fresh enough that a lot of people will find it of interest.

As for the second point "What's the point?" What business does that question have being asked around here?    On a more serious note, my articles are written to inspire discussion and thought.  If people hadn't considered this topic before, and reading the article made them think about it, have I not achieved a valuable service?

This isn't a literary journal, where we try and add and build upon the current climate of scholarly discussion.  This is a place where we post interesting thoughts and opinions, then see what others have to say about them.

[Skar]

I've attempted to read both Donaldson and Leguin.  While my reading of them has been limited because I didn't like them, I didn't like them.  They were both very full of themselves and melodramatic.  Their writing was/is extremely self-aware.  When I read Tolkien I got lost in the story.  When I read them I just got annoyed at being preached at.  

I think they gained what acceptance they did among the literary folks who accept fantasy as literature at all because they were so very preachy, a hallmark of "literature," something familiar and therefore safer for the professors if you will.

In the end, if LeGuin and Donaldson were good original writers, not something I agree with at this point, and Tolkien blew them off course, why did that happen?

Was is just market forces?  Did they think, "Hey, I could write original stuff but I'll make more money if I try and ride the Tolkien wave?"  Shame on them for selling out.  (but, who wouldn't really?)

If it wasn't market forces and it happened to them unconsciously then I submit that they were probably heavily derivative in the first place, their original sources/inspirations just weren't as famous as Tolkien is.

I suppose I agree with you overall.  If Tolkien had never happened then writers of fantasy would have developed a different style all their own but the market would not have been there to support the vast field of experimenters we have enjoyed since.

No Tolkien: Fantasy grows slowly on its own, probably still unaccepted in the mainstream today.

Tolkien: It undergoes a boom and develops very quickly and on a wide front but is heavily influenced by Tolkien.

I have to say I prefer the second.

[Lieutenant Kije]

This is the main point I disagree with on this entire thread. By saying this, you seem to imply that what Tolkien did wasn't that great--which is very different from the other things you've said.

I was saying that copycats will be copycats, whatever they're given to copy.  If not Tolkien, then LeGuin.  Or someone else.

I don't think you can dismiss the 'copycats' as easily as you have. Donaldson is no 'shlock.' He is a brilliant master of prose and characterization. LeGuin is no 'shlock.' Yet, both of their foundational series were blown off course by the all-powerful Tolkien storm. Instead of being allowed to develop naturally, they were forced to deal with an external pressure on their creativity.

I'm not saying everyone that followed him was shlock.  I guess that was a poor way of putting it, and I made an error.

If, as you say, fantasists were given more time to establish their own voices and Tolkien never existed, I think it would have taken so much longer for their own voice to develop.  Tolkien inspired people.  T(olkien) created so many fantasists, in my opinion.  You said as much earlier in responding to my very first point.  

I think T sped up the acceptance of fantasy.  Sure, there was a time when he held great sway, but you (EUOL) are evidence that there are those who are reacting against that influence in a way.  T put fantasy on the map, and gave people something to copy (to different extents) and to react against.  The genre is moving on.  T will not be God-Emporer forever.  He will always be a King, but in the future (perhaps the near future) he will cease to have the negative influence you claim he has.  But because T did what he did, that future, where authors use their own ingenuity and creativity to design their worlds, is sooner than it otherwise would have been.  Skar just made this point in his previous post while I was writing mine.

It also bothers me that excellence, whatever it is or whenever it comes, should be looked down upon.  If the rest of the world wasn't up to his level that's the world's fault, not T's.  In essence: don't wish that T never was; wish that we all were good enough for T.

[Lieutenant Kije]

And to add to that:

Given the choice between having Tolkien, or having authors be more comfortable/competent with writing in their own genre, I'll take Tolkien any day.  Competence, ingenuity, creativity will come, but another Tolkien may not.

[Mistress of Darkness]

Skar, I think it is a stretch to imply that fantasy is accepted in the mainstream today. But I don't agree that without Tolkein the fantasy genre would have evolved into mainstream acceptance.

I think there is a lot to be said for the encouragement that Tolkein's genis provided for the closet novelists. I believe a lot of writers (and publishers) looked at what he accomplished and gained the courage to experiment in the field of fantasy to a degree that wouldn't have happened without Tolkein and his groundbreaking novels.

Personally, I don't think copying in itself is bad. Whenever I see things in my own work that smack of other authors, I remind myself that Ray Bradbury theorized that it was a necessarily part of development for a budding author's prose to be largely derivative. What hurt (and continues to hurt) a lot fantasy authors is that they don't take the next step, but remain content with "publishable" or "marketable" material. It's laziness. I don't believe that the advent or lack of Tolkein would change the result of this piece of human nature.

In either scenario, with Tolkein or without, it is going to take a number of dedicated individuals who concern themselves with their ability to write, rather than their ability to be published, to earn the fantasy genre a respected place in the mainstream.

Without Tolkein, I don't believe fatasy would be any closer to that position than it is today, and we would be much poor for the want of it.