Difference between Tolkien and the 'modern Fantasy' authors?

[Teresa Edgerton]

I find it very interesting -- and possibly revealing about the times we live in -- that so many readers only consider characters deep and realistic if they give in to their faults and temptations, instead of struggling with them and winning.

Must a character be exactly as weak as we are ourselves in order for us to identify with them? I know there are people in this world (lots of them!) who are stronger, braver, kinder, more ethical than I am. Why shouldn't I be able to believe in them, and suffer with them, and cheer their triumphs, when I meet such people in literature?

It would be different if the characters in LOTR didn't struggle with doubt and temptation and conflicting loyalties, but they do. Yet it seems for many readers the internal conflicts only count as conflicts if they bring the characters down. Characters who rise above are automatically considered unrealistic.

But the world isn't made with everyone down on the same mediocre level or below it. There is a whole range of human behavior from the fine and noble, to the low and mean, and books that concentrate on the baser part and deny the higher are not more realistic, they simply choose to focus on a particular narrow range which is certainly more commonplace but no more true to life. And frankly, I don't read fantasy in order to stay mired in the commonplace. I don't read it to meet people who are designated as "heroes" simply because they've been cast in a leading part and have more interesting adventures than I do, rather than because they have stretched themselves so that they might fill the role. While modern fiction often compresses the idea of heroism down to fit the outline of the commonplace man; for writers like Tolkien -- as in the real real world -- heroism is something a person grows into.

Characters like Frodo and Sam challenge us to become more than we are, to be the best that we have it in us to be. And that's a little discomforting, because it comes with expectations that we might have to inconvenience ourselves -- maybe even do more than that -- in order to meet them. On the other hand, the characters of some of the modern writers cited reassure us that we are fine just the way we are, because really there's no chance of being any better. And that's just not true. It's simply a comfortable fiction dressed up in gore and misery to make it appear braver and more realistic.

 

[Pyan]

Merry Christmas, Power.
I doubt if either of us are ever going to convert the other, but it's really nice to discuss with someone who's only line of argument is "Because!"

Just re-read this! I missed out a very important word....it should, of course read:

Merry Christmas, Power.
I doubt if either of us are ever going to convert the other, but it's really nice to discuss with someone who's only line of argument is not "Because!"

*Embarrassed cough..*

 

[j d worthington]

Yeah I think I'm just going to concede defeat here, because, as you said, there will be no conversions.

I'd hate to see you concede defeat, because you're bringing some good points to the debate and, as Pyan said, this is much more an enjoyable discussion/disagreement on strengths and weaknesses of particular writers than is often offered....

However... No, I disagree with LotR being just a dark fairy tale. I see Tolkien's own experiences in life (and those around him) coming out through the book; in fact, I think that's one of the book's great strengths, is that -- albeit in a much quieter fashion than we're used to these days -- it is a poignant human document. It presents people poised on that eternal dilemma between the ideal they strive for and the reality they attain. It also presents us with the very genuine human conviction that sometimes a fight has to be fought, even if the outcome is apparently completely hopeless. Endurance in the face of the belief that all is lost is one of the themes here, and I would argue strongly that the characters present that painful but nonetheless genuinely noble idea very powerfully.

Again, I can't agree with you on Gimli (who, by the way, is by no means among my favorite characters of the book; I find him an often thorny pain-in-the-neck... but very genuine). Nor do the other members of the Fellowship come off as spotless. Nearly all have their failures which endanger the rest -- in some cases, endanger their entire world. Pippin and the Palantir, Merry and his impulsiveness with Denethor (and his loyalty to Faramir, which came very close to distracting Gandalf at a crucial moment), Sam and his inability to see past his hatred of Gollum, which pushes Smeagol back over the edge at a point where he is quite possibly on the verge of regaining the "humanity" he had so long lost -- thus turning it to spite and hate and resulting in his pursuing his vengeance by leading them into the trap at Shelob's lair; Frodo's succumbing to the Ring at crucial points, finally donning it (rather than destroying it) and nearly ruining everything just at the moment of success, Legolas' pride and occasional arrogance, which nearly caused a schism in the Fellowship at Lothlorien... etc., etc., etc.

While these may not be on the level of committing a grievous offense against another member of the fellowship (or others), nonetheless these are very human flaws which either cause enormous damage or fail to do so by the turn of chance -- very much as it works in the real world, where wars have been fought over actions resulting from such character flaws. And this is only dealing with the Fellowship. All of the characters have rich backstories full of such complexity. Galadriel, for instance, who is exiled to Middle-earth because of her part in the rebellion of the Noldor in the First Age -- thousands of years of being cut off from her true home and kindred due to a single act of pride that resulted in the killing of hundreds of her kind. (This isn't gone into in detail in LotR -- that is only done in The Silmarillion -- but it is there, if you read the book carefully; cf. her song of parting in Lorien, "Namárië", also sometimes called "Galadriel's Lament".) Hence her prayer that Frodo may be given the gift denied her of sailing into the West (the only place where such scars as he bears may be assuaged, if not fully healed), should the time come.

The thing is, such details don't only enrich the background pointlessly to the tale -- they are things that influence, often in subtle ways, the main characters in their choices, actions, and feelings; they are parts of their world which they've often been aware of on a mythic or legendary level, but which are now brought home to them by personal experience with those involved. Thus it makes an impact on them, causing a growth and broadening of the main characters throughout the tale. Again, nothing in that book is extraneous; it all goes toward increasing the ties between the various threads and levels of meaning (both within the world of the story and in its applicability to our own).

It seems to me that, in one sense, we're talking about a more subtle as opposed to a more obvious, approach; adumbration rather than (as I noted earlier) didacticism. Again, I'd say that a closer reading of LotR would reveal the very things you see it as missing; because Tolkien certainly put them in there, he just did it in a much more quiet, subtle fashion than most modern writers do.

At any rate... you've also intrigued me a bit more about the works you mention -- something I've experienced quite a lot around this place -- so I will have to try to find some time to give them a try.

In the meantime, a happy holiday to you; I've enjoyed debating with you on this; as noted, it's always pleasant to have such a discussion with someone who brings thoughtful (and thought-provoking) things to the table....

 

[power to the J]

Pyan, I didn't want to start an argument with you so I ignored that.

And Teresa, everybody loses internal struggles once in a while, yet it seems that the characters of the Fellowship--save Boromir--do not, which makes them like superheroes, or just above regualr humans, and because of that I can't relate with them. Perhaps my expectations and ideals are a bit over the top and too demanding, but I just don't see Tolkien as the "greatest of all time" like most people do. Also, I had to get into this arguemnt just because of the first post, and felt I had to defend modern authors.

Happy holidays to you, J.D. as well. I'm going to re-read LotR soon (but that could be next decade) and then we can continue this argument, if I still feel the same (you never know).

Anyway, that's all.

*Dust suddenly appears, and when it fades, Power to the J has disappeared*

 

[j d worthington]

Interesting post, Teresa... went in while I was writing my own, apparently; and addresses some of what I was saying, but in much clearer terms.

 

[Lith]

First off, modern authors are more recognizing the fact that female characters can exist below the neck-indeed, that female characters can exist AT ALL.

This isn't a characteristic of Tolkien though. Galadriel and Eowyn were hardly there for sex appeal. True, he doesn't talk of women much, but Galadriel led her people for ages, and had much wisdom and power, and Eowyn is mentioned as (paraphrasing rather badly) "having a heart like that of a man, that beat just as strong." So ultimately while we don't get many women, the ones we do get are QUALITY.

On temptation of the good guys- Galadriel and Gandalf also both wanted the ring. So it isn't right to say that Boromir was the only character that was tempted. He's just the only one that gave in. In fact, Galadriel and Gandalf were both very frightened of the ring, and what it would do to them. It was probably fear for their very souls that helped them resist temptation. And even Frodo, ultimately, couldn't give up the ring, and gave in to temptation, so it was only through a stroke of luck (or Providence) that the world was saved. As for the other characters (mostly Hobbits), they are flawed in that they don't understand the world they are travelling through- their worldview is too small from living in the insular Shire all their lives. And they're rather lazy. Possibly these are flaws neglected in modern fiction.

I think Tolkien had a certain turn of mind that, agree with him or disagree, gave him the mindset to produce greater depth than other authors. His characters don't all know the history of the world, but you know there's more buried under the surface. It isn't just the amount of historical detail, either, but something in the types of details and stories told, that differentiate him from other authors. I wish I could explain it better than that. Perhaps it's partly that he didn't jump into his characters' heads too much. Perhaps it's that his ancient languages are self-consistent (thanks to his profession). Perhaps it's that his characters aren't in it for themselves (so much so at least), and perhaps it's because he patterned his characters on old tales he was familiar with. Or perhaps it was some combination of all this, and something more besides. And a certain nobility that's rather out of fashion now but which gives hope to readers. A nobility that perhaps never existed in most people, but nevertheless (if realistically done) gives a number of people something to strive toward.

And JD, I wholly agree about LOTR being infused with a sense of death. Though I would also add despair and disappointment to that.

Tolkien's style was flawed and featured too much BS when if he would've got to the story instead of telling me the history of some family that I never hear about again, I would've enjoyed it much more. I agree with the person who said that Eddings is better than Tolkien, and I will even go so far as to say that Robert Jordan is better as well.

Ironically I think that's part of what makes Tolkien better. It forces one to slow down and ponder, and through it, his world feels larger. And the world did move slower before the Industrial Revolution. A months-long journey would not have you business-minded all waking hours. The whole modern world has gotten caught up in a mindset (not just literary) that says to "not waste time" and to always "be more efficient". It's the machine ethic carried over into every area of life.

And I strongly disagree about Jordan (and haven't read Eddings)- let's just say I find Jordan highly entertaining for all the wrong reasons.

It's funny, but for all the talk of Tolkien-knockoffs, I don't think there have ever been any. His imitators just recycle the very elements of LOTR that weren't his to begin with, leaving out that elusive quality that lifts LOTR above the rest.

As for Tolkien compared to Martin- Martin can be more exciting; certainly there's more going on in the intricacy of the plot; but when I read LOTR, I actually felt I'd been on a months-long, arduous journey through a barren Mordor. No other book has ever given me that experience, and unfortunately it's one I'm not so anxious to repeat (I've read Fellowship three times, but only excerpts of the latter two since the first reading).

Without wandering too far off topic, I do want to add that Tolkien isn't as black-and-white as is commonly supposed; neither is Martin as grey as commonly supposed. If Martin was truly morally grey, I wouldn't like him at all. He's still following the "show, don't tell" rule, and doing it better than a lot of writers these days. Under all that apparent moral relativism is, I suspect, a strong moral underpinning. Still awaiting the rest of the books to confirm that suspicion, though.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

And even Frodo, ultimately, couldn't give up the ring, and gave in to temptation

It always surprises me -- although I don't know why it should by now -- that readers who consider Tolkien's characters too perfect and infallible gloss over the fact that Frodo failed to give up the ring.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

And Teresa, everybody loses internal struggles once in a while

Of course, they do -- and that's reflected in LOTR (for the most notable instance see above). But I was referring to the way that so many of Tolkien's detractors assume that when the character does not fail the struggle was therefore less fierce, or even nonexistant.

As well as the way that the characters who do fail, along with the circumstances of their failures, are neatly disposed of because they somehow don't count.

 

[j d worthington]

This isn't a characteristic of Tolkien though. Galadriel and Eowyn were hardly there for sex appeal. True, he doesn't talk of women much, but Galadriel led her people for ages, and had much wisdom and power, and Eowyn is mentioned as (paraphrasing rather badly) "having a heart like that of a man, that beat just as strong." So ultimately while we don't get many women, the ones we do get are QUALITY.

Very true, Lith. This is one of the things that has bothered me for some time in criticism of fantasy, sf... or, for that matter, any kind of literature: The idea that, if sexuality isn't blatantly expressed on the page, the writer is not being true to life. Nonsense. Sex is certainly a very important part of life, and in fact something that underlies a great deal of what we do... but many societies in history have sublimated that into other forms, focused that into various traditions, worldviews, and actions that are by no means overtly sexual. The idea of "courtly love" was very much driven by sex... but the approach to it was entirely different than what we think of as the norm now. The approach the Greeks had to the subject was just as different again. And so on.

Sex is in LotR, for that matter, in a variety of ways; it just isn't "in your face"; it's handled more subtly and -- for the sort of milieu Tolkien is depicting -- much more realistically, than would be our post-Freudian approach.

Incidentally, this is something frequently leveled at writers such as Bob Howard or Lester Dent (for that matter, most of the pulp writers): that their women were "shrinking violets", only there to be rescued. Horse-hockey! Read their work again, with a little more attention, please. Howard does have that type, yes; though much less frequently than is thought. In fact, in most of the cases where they begin that way, they grow stronger through the story, until they often help save the protagonist's bacon. (One of the few cases that doesn't happen is in "Jewels of Gwahlur", and there Howard pointedly pokes fun at the type.) As for Dent, I'd remind them of such characters as Midnat D'Avis or -- most especially -- Patricia Savage (who outwitted Doc and his entire crew on occasion, and did indeed help save their skins now and again... not to mention standing quite well on her own in most cases). Most of these writers didn't particularly care for "ornamental" women themselves; they're boring as characters to the writers, too. Reading their work with blinders off, you'll find an awful lot of strong women characters in earlier fiction -- including fantasy.

And a certain nobility that's rather out of fashion now but which gives hope to readers. A nobility that perhaps never existed in most people, but nevertheless (if realistically done) gives a number of people something to strive toward.

Again, I think this is the fallout of a very limited understanding of human psychology, due in large part to Freud. Yes, ultimately everything we do is selfishly motivated; but that often includes self-sacrifice because the self-image one acquires through such -- if it is for a cause that one considers worthy of such an ordeal -- is important enough a gain to drive one to such noble actions. The motivation is more complex than it was thought to be until the last century or so -- though even that much is a dubious assertion; if one reads many of the writers of earlier periods they were very aware of the extremely complex motivations underlying such actions -- but nonetheless it does exist to this day; a great deal more than we're made aware of by the media. If you doubt it, look for personal accounts and diaries of those in war zones, zones of personal disaster, infectious diseases with high mortality rates, etc.

I think that Teresa's right, and that we're too prone to bend over backward to accept as "realism" presentations of human beings as venal and selfish and failures, and ridiculously blind to the genuine fact that there is at least as much -- if not more -- of kindness and generosity in human interaction; something that seems rather obvious, when you think about it; else civilization would never have got anywhere, and all the faults (such as racism, slavery, child labor, sweatshops, etc.) that we so decry would still be as accepted now as they once were....

And JD, I wholly agree about LOTR being infused with a sense of death. Though I would also add despair and disappointment to that.

Again, I think this is very much the case. I think, in part, it is the underlying belief in a deity that echoes throughout the novel, that causes this misperception of LotR as so "light". Reading it carefully, it's a very, very dark and grim book. Essentially, I think a reading of Tolkien's "On Fairy-Stories" would be a good idea for those who think Tolkien didn't consider such issues and include them in his own work; they are very much a part of his work and, as I noted earlier, reflect his own experiences of pain, loss, grief, and (at least occasional) despair.

Without wandering too far off topic, I do want to add that Tolkien isn't as black-and-white as is commonly supposed; neither is Martin as grey as commonly supposed. If Martin was truly morally grey, I wouldn't like him at all. He's still following the "show, don't tell" rule, and doing it better than a lot of writers these days. Under all that apparent moral relativism is, I suspect, a strong moral underpinning. Still awaiting the rest of the books to confirm that suspicion, though.

And I would argue that Tolkien himself was following the "show, don't tell" rule as much as, if not more than, most moderns -- who really do do a lot of "telling" (often through dialogue) about what the reader is supposed to get out of this scene or tale -- as he relies on the reader to "read between the lines" of the action and interactions of his characters to gather one heck of a lot of information. In other words, he truly seems to respect the reader's ability to read deeply, whereas too many moderns feel the need to hit you over the head with what's "really going on".

 

[Connavar]

Im actually glad sex is more subtle in Tolkien's world.


I have been disgusted too many times in modern epic fantasy when the writer feels the need to put in sex as a gimmick to sell and to have realism. Specially all these rape scenes is too much for cause its not needed. Specially in some books when there is an underaged girl involved. If its not rape there must be sex scene in every chapter.

I prefer it when sex isn't "in your face" all the time.

 

[j d worthington]

Im actually glad sex is more subtle in Tolkien's world.


I have been disgusted too many times in modern epic fantasy when the writer feels the need to put in sex as a gimmick to sell and to have realism. Specially all these rape scenes is too much for cause its not needed. Specially in some books when there is an underaged girl involved. If its not rape there must be sex scene in every chapter.

I prefer it when sex isn't "in your face" all the time.

I'd tend to agree with that, Connavar. I think we've gone too far the other direction; to where sex is included as gratuitously as violence (and usually the two combined -- much like the "spicy" pulps, which were the lowest form of the order), rather than because the story honestly calls for it. I've no problem with an honest -- even graphic -- depiction of sex if it seems germane to what the author is saying (for example, one of my personal favorites of Moorcock's work is The Brothel in Rosenstrasse, which is very graphic in its depiction... but he also has sex -- like so much else in his work -- have a symbolic, metaphoric function as well, so that it enhances the points he makes very well); but sex just to "liven things up" is frequently as dull to me as pornography. A subtler form of sexuality -- like a subtler use of language or foreshadowing or hinting of an alienness to things rather than a bald statement -- is not only very refreshing, but actually both requires and rewards more imagination from both writer and reader....

 

[sarakoth]

A key difference between Tolkien and many modern fantasy authors are their writing styles. Tolkien wrote his novels as if he was a loremaster telling an ancient legend to a group of young men and women. Modern authors use a more contemporary style with dialogue fairly similar to normal speech.

Also, Tolkien's orcs are grey while modern orcs are green.

 

[Pyan]

A key difference between Tolkien and many modern fantasy authors are their writing styles. Tolkien wrote his novels as if he was a loremaster telling an ancient legend to a group of young men and women. Modern authors use a more contemporary style with dialogue fairly similar to normal speech.

I see what you mean here, Sarakoth, but most of LotR is written in a style that mirrors the turn of speech of the first half of the 20th century - it's only occasionally, and at appropriate momements, that he goes into a "High Fantasy" style. Most readers when the books were published wouldn't see anything archaic about the majority of the language used, or the style of writing.

Also, Tolkien's orcs are grey while modern orcs are green.

The only colour Tolkien uses to describe them is black, as far as I know. I'd be interested to know where you found a reference in any of the books to grey orcs...

 

[viZion]

My thought about Tolkien has always been that to really enjoy and understand his books you have to study them. For me, when I'm required to study my entertainment to understand it, it ceases to be entertainment.

Modern authors tend to keep things simpler and more immediately entertaining. Even deeply complicated series like A Song of Ice and Fire can be read straight through as a simple pleasure since the reader is secure in the knowledge that everything will be explained and revealed eventually.

 

[Ursa major]

Originally Posted by viZion
For me, when I'm required to study my entertainment to understand it, it ceases to be entertainment.

You may be right, but not in the way I think you mean. A work that merely entertains can, with insight, become something more profouund, even a passion.

I'm not a big reader of fantasy (not even LoTR o) - yet) so I'll use music as an example. (My apologies to the tone deaf.) It's sometimes said that you can tell a good piece of music because you notice something new in it each time you hear it. Now obviously a book (even a bad one) can be far more complicated, and multi-facteted, than even the most complex music, but the principle is the same: the more you know a good work, the deeper your enjoyment can be.

And the best part is, you can be entertained while you gain the insight.

 

[Pyan]

Nice comparison, Ursa...I was trying to think of a way to say exactly that, but the music allusion is perfect.

 

[viZion]

Good points, Ursa. Of course, it all depends on what you're looking for from any given piece of entertainment. With books I'm just looking for a good story in general. I don't want to feel like I'm forced to dig deep to enjoy the story which is how I felt with Lord of the Rings.

 

[Overread]

strange - I don't feel that I have to dig deep to find the story in LOTR, though I understand you point, I feel more that the more I dig into a tale or world like middle earth, the more the story unfolds.

 

[Pyan]

I'd agree with you there, Overread...it can be read on so many levels. It's quite possible to read it as a straightforward adventure story, but if you want to dig, there are so many books on the subject it's almost silly.

And after spending over forty years reading SF/F, I've yet to read another book that made me want to dig so far as I have into Middle-earth, nor yet one that would stand up to the digging....

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

It's quite possible to read it as a straightforward adventure story, but if you want to dig, there are so many books on the subject it's almost silly.

I certainly read it as such when I first discovered it as a teenager. The deeper levels evolved over the years.

And I don't think that it's any extra work to read LOTR; it's really more the opposite. Instead of racing through, you have to slow down and enjoy the quieter moments, and not expect a thrill a minute.