Difference between Tolkien and the 'modern Fantasy' authors?

[Lith]

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.

There is a certain "sound" to writers in the last hundred years or so, which Tolkien is almost free of. Not being a grammarian or even being strong in grammar, I can't explain it very well, but the modern sound grates on my internal ears. Tolkien manages to avoid it, though I would say there's more to it than just telling the tale like it was folklore. It has something to do with that, but also in the types of thoughts expressed and the language used to express them- certain ways of constructing sentences.

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.

Unless you enjoy that studying. You may at some point find a book that you love so much that the study is just another form of entertainment, and possibly a little more, since you learn things while studying that can be applied in other ways in your life. If the study yields fruit, then the work is superb. If it doesn't, well, it can still be good light entertainment.

 

[paranoid marvin]

Well , I always read books for the simple pleasure of reading
Then I took an English Literature course , and I can now spot plot devices and other things that I would never have noticed before. Does it enhance my pleasure of the novel? Not really , but it DOES help to appreciate the skills of the author

 

[j d worthington]

Well , I always read books for the simple pleasure of reading
Then I took an English Literature course , and I can now spot plot devices and other things that I would never have noticed before. Does it enhance my pleasure of the novel? Not really , but it DOES help to appreciate the skills of the author

It may in time, however. The more good literature -- rather than reading matter written just to entertain -- you read, the more you'll find that the other stuff really does tend to be a lot less satisfying in the long run. Such techniques, coupled with genuine talent and skill, reach in and touch on a deeper emotional level, as well as intellectual levels. That's what makes such techniques worthwhile in the first place: they are things that have been slowly developed over very long period of time, honed and refined, until they resonate much more powerfully and much more profoundly, and in such a way that repeated readings only bring out more and more emotional depth as well as depth of thought.

And I can't say I've ever found reading LotR "work" either; when I first read the book, I was twelve, and I simply enjoyed a good story, well told. It was only as the years went by, and I found myself drawn back to it time and again that I began to truly appreciate the truly amazing layers of levels in the thing; and, as I grow older, I find that the feelings it stirs tap into deep wells of experience and emotion, and reveal a great deal of insight and contemplation of such things in Tolkien himself. In contrast, I find that a lot of the more modern writing is, simply, quite shallow in comparison -- a lot of flash, but little or no substance. This is not true of all modern writers, by any means; and some can stand with the very best; but of modern literature in general -- especially genre writing -- I'd have to say it's a sound general statement.

Either way, though, I've never found it in any way difficult or laborious to read LotR. (Now, The History of Middle-earth is something else again; fascinating, but at times it is work. Worth it, but a much harder process....)

Again, I think the difference -- and it is one we're reluctant to address these days, it seems -- is that between genuine literature (or art) and (to use the phrase I put in above) "reading matter"... something written to entertain on a surface level; in other words, something to occupy the mind and kill time. Genuine literature, on the other hand, goes much, much deeper, and taps into a writer's innermost thoughts and feelings (though perhaps transmuted through the art of storytelling -- think of Lovecraft's racism becoming that extremely complex, powerful, and multilayered story "The Shadow Over Innsmouth") and therefore touches similar chords in a large body of readers. As I've said before, there's nothing wrong with pop-literature entertainment -- it does what it was created to do: to entertain. But -- save in rare, skillful hands -- it does little other than that. Genuine literature -- like genuine art in any other medium -- actually gives us deeper insight into the human condition, as well as our reaction to the world (and universe) around us; frequently challenging how we see these things forever after. At its very best, it can change the way we see them, and allow us to see (and enjoy) life much more richly and in more ways than we ever have before.

 

[rai]

In Tolkien's case, the world is real, it has depths far beyond the focus of the main story; as I noted above, it has myriads of untold stories just around the corner, of some of which we catch a fleeting glimpse, while of others we only hear hints. But it is a world with much greater depth and thickness, and -- as was noted in one of the early reviews of The Hobbit -- it is "a world that seems to have been going on before we stumbled into it" and, for that matter, will go on long after we leave it; whereas the modern writers' worlds are very much literary contrivances rather than the result of a deep inner vision. As such, they will have less detail, because they are conscious constructs, and inevitably will have less depth and richness of depth and texture and detail. When I say the world is real, what I am referring to is that -- as Tolkien himself brings out in his essay "On Fairy-Stories" -- it is very much a revisioning of the real world, it is solidly based on the writer's experience of what Tolkien would call the primary world, rather than a milieu created to fit a story the writer wants to tell. In Tolkien's case, it is something of the other way around -- the stories grow ineluctably out of the nature of the world in which they are set, rather than the world being built to fit the story.

I have yet to read the whole thread. But it's nice to see the thought is going into this discussion.

I have not read as much as many of you guys so I can't speak about this as well as you already have.

But I will say what I think.

First about LOR I have read 4+ times (once every 5-6 years). It is the kind of book that is like an old friend. You can go years without talking to but when you meet up it's good to talk about old times.

I read LOR when I was a young kid, I was surprised it didn't end with the destruction of the ring. Many works I had been reading were just that goal focused. Like here is the task and here is how they went about it. But no. The survivors had to go back to the Shire to see that it was not a blank space forgotten once it was not in the main story. Bilbo had to leave Middle Earth (etc..) and while that was then end it makes you realise that there is a bigger picture not just the destruction of the ring.

Also the way the Hobbit and LOR tie together (although it may seem contrived) makes both stories more rich.

--

Now I am 1/4 th way into the 3rd GRRM book. I do love it. But sometimes it seems to me as if I can see GRRM working as a modern writer. I see him in my mind making up fabulous names and situations and pinning them all together. But (to me) I do not ever forget I am reading a book.. What I mean is I can tell it's GRRM saying well today I have to crank out a chapter and let me see who to kill? How will that effect the rest of the story? If that happens (I have Greyjoy take Winterfell then Robb will do xyz).

Maybe I am being to cynical but just with Tolkien it seems to me he is telling a wonderful sroty that is almost like history, something that has really happened. To me GRRM is making things up as if he wants to fill up 7 books worth (or whatever his contract is for) and if he has to throw in 100 new characters as he goes along whatever it takes. But just to me is not as satisfying. More like fast food. I love fast food and don't mine eating it quite often. But it's not the same as a fine meal which I like much better but don't get to have as often.

 

[Narkalui]

I don't have much to add to what's already been said....

Other than my opinion on modern fantasy writers being that they seem to draw much more from Howard than Tolkien. Even Terry Brooks (whose first work, lets face it, is almost a paragraph by paragraph unashamed rip off of Lord of the Rings!) seems to have been a lot more influenced by Robert E Howard than by Tolkien....

Any thoughts?

 

[j d worthington]

I don't have much to add to what's already been said....

Other than my opinion on modern fantasy writers being that they seem to draw much more from Howard than Tolkien. Even Terry Brooks (whose first work, lets face it, is almost a paragraph by paragraph unashamed rip off of Lord of the Rings!) seems to have been a lot more influenced by Robert E Howard than by Tolkien....

Any thoughts?

Nice post. Yes, I'd say that Howard (and the pulp writers that followed his lead) have had a major impact on modern fantasy. Not that all (or even most) of them are directly following Howard, or following him consciously at all (though some are); rather, Howard's impact has gone into the mix and helped to shape the form of modern fantasy.

 

[Sylanya]

You know, I think the reason why there is such a major difference in the prose in modern fantasy books than from the works of Tolkien is because of the same reason as the film and television industry. People are more acquainted with fast-paced things because they understand the basic things now. Plus describing every little detail really doesn't allow anyone to picture anything for themselves, which is half the fun of reading because it all exists in your mind anyways.

That's just my two cents.

 

[j d worthington]

You know, I think the reason why there is such a major difference in the prose in modern fantasy books than from the works of Tolkien is because of the same reason as the film and television industry. People are more acquainted with fast-paced things because they understand the basic things now. Plus describing every little detail really doesn't allow anyone to picture anything for themselves, which is half the fun of reading because it all exists in your mind anyways.

That's just my two cents.

There's some truth to that... and certainly I'd add that the film and tv industries have impacted literature in such a way as to effect such a change, at least in part.

One thing, though... I disagree that describing all the detail is necessarily detrimental to the process you describe. After all, unless one photographs a flower, no matter how much detail one gives in written form, each reader will picture a different flower. And such description, when done well, can actually enhance the beauty of the writing... the flow of the prose itself, sort of an interlude in a musical movement, if you will. But... it has to be done well; and that's the trick....

 

[Marky Lazer]

I do agree agree on the film idea. In early movies it wasn't enough to say "Lets take the car to visit Mr. Jonhson." And then be in the Mr. Johnson's room talking to him. In early movies they had to say it, get out of the house, into the car, drive a bit, get out of the car, knock on Johnson's door, enter Johnson's house, and talk to him.

What I'm trying to say is, I guess, movies changed. Books changed. (Life changed...)

 

[The Procrastinator]

I am also a reader and fan of GRRM's Song of Ice and Fire series, and I love it. Its very entertaining, and like the vanished Power to J, I have to agree its fast paced, well plotted and well characterised - superior fantasy without a doubt. But as Rai mentioned above, I also get the feeling now and then that Martin deliberately introduces shocking elements (like killing someone off, or appearing to) to manipulate the reader's feelings. It works, and its really well done - but as Rai said, I can't forget I'm reading a book, because of it. There's heaps of things going on all over the place, not much is superfluous, it gets you very involved. But I won't be rereading it 15 times (at least) as I have with LOTR, I can tell you that right now. It wouldn't hold up.

Why? Because its just a story. A damn fine one, but a story. LOTR is a myth, a completely different animal. The point of LOTR is not just the narrative, and not just the characters, not just the language. As others have mentioned, it has depth, many depths. Tolkien succeeded in writing a modern myth, which is why it will never have a use-by date - it will always resonate as long as there are humans, because ultimately its about change, unstoppable change, and thats going on all the time and always will. Perhaps you could say ASOIAF is a simile, and LOTR is a metaphor. Or perhaps that just sounds farty - thats why I'm not a writer.

One more point - as Marky Lazer mentioned above, "movies changed. Books changed. (Life changed...)"

Not so sure about life changing, except superficially - but our narrative of it certainly has. We've become "sophisticated" where it comes to following a story, especially visually (films). Ironically, our ability to read, write and appreciate literature seems to be on the decline. Coincidence?

 

[Boaz]

The Procrastinator, I love your avatar.

Some of you know I am also a Song of Ice and Fire fan. And I agree that Martin shocks us on purpose... repeatedly. The purpose is to let us know that this is not a myth or fairy tale. His story is nasty and brutish. I think he's trying to reflect how life can be ugly and sorrowful while trying to show us that the good guys might not win after all.

I think Martin is successfully doing what Tarantino and other contemporary storytellers are failing to do. Tarantino pushes the envelope of violence merely for the sake of stylized violence. I feel Martin pushes the envelope of character safety for the sake of character and story development.

Tolkien rarely described rape, murder, and brutality... and when he did it was in broad generalizations from a third person past tense perspective. Martin presents them in first person present tense... and the horror is inescapable.

Don't get me wrong, I love Tolkien. I've read The Lord of the Rings more than thirty times, though I've not read it in the last seven years. The reason for this is that my tastes have changed. Like Procrastinator said, "We've become "sophisticated" where it comes to following a story..." I wonder if my tastes are more sophisticated, less sophisticated, more mature, or more jaded.

Tolkien conveys such a sense of wonder in his writings. His great themes and epic stories always filled me with awe. I read Greek, Persian, Egyptian, Norse, and smatterings of various other mythologies when I was younger. The normalcy of demihumans and gods seamlessly interacting with humans defined mythology for me. I loved it, but I don't search for stories like that anymore.

There's been a subtle shift towards histories and fictional histories. Yes, Tolkien wrote the best fictional histories I've ever read. Yes, Martin has made a few mistakes in Ice and Fire such as naming the western and southern continents Westeros and Sothoros respectively... the eastern continent is still unnamed, mayhaps it will be Estros or Ostoros. Histories give me a grander perpsective than quests do. I guess I got tired of Tolkien imitators using deus ex machina to resolve their plots. Their excuse, I think, is that it's fantasy.

Also on the topic of sophistication, I appreciate authors jumping into a story and throwing characters and plots at me without uneccessary explanation. Usually writers of short stories are best at this. They don't have the time or space to explain every nuance. They expect me to use my brain to figure out who's who and what's already passed between them. In The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien does this with elves, wraiths, Gollum/Smeagol, Gondor, and Aragorn. Conversely, he lets us know early regarding hobbits and The Ring. In allowing us to process the natures of elves and wraiths, the duality of Gollum/Smeagol, and the reunion of Gondor and Aragorn, we use our brains and experience the sense of wonder at the Firstborn of Eru, the terror of the Nine, the sorrow and disgust that is Gollum, and the joy at the return of the King.

Martin also hits the ground running with his narrative. In the very first chapter, Eddard's men are concerned over find a direwolf slain by a stag, but the importance of that is not fully appreciated until Eddard's death... if I was more intelligent, mayhaps I'd have understood earlier in the story. Yet I don't experience the sense of awe in Ice and Fire that I do from Tolkien. Martin constantly keeps me guessing. Instead of wonder, I find that anticipation is the emotion I get most from Martin. Main characters die... often. I love the way the anticipation heightens my anxiety.

I had not planned on writing this much when I responded to Procrastinator's post. I appreciate your time and patience for my lack of succintness and cohesion. I'd love to hear your responses.

 

[Lith]

Martin sometimes reminds me of one of those type of paintings with a lot going on (usually a house or a castle absolutely stuffed with characters all doing interesting things), and all of it put in painstaking detail, a slightly distorted but interesting mirror of reality.

Tolkien reminds me more of... painting parallel seems to be missing. But it feels as though it breathes more, and is both more frustrating and mysterious and awe-ful, and old. It moves at a slower pace, when the world generally moved at a slower pace.

 

[Megari]

Tolkien's LOTR and the Hobbit is just first of its genre, and the tone, characterisation and all that is simply byproduct of the time and environment he was from.

Nowadays there are so many selection of fantasy novels to choose from, so contemporary fantasy authors are being driven to find ways to create worlds, characters and dialogues that stands out from others, to grip you and to engage you quickly as a reader. We're more fussy nowadays. Consumer sovereignty and all that you know.

 

[MKG]

Excuse me if I'm repeating anything which has already been said.

The overwhelming difference between LOTR and modern fantasies is that Tolkien launched his work into a world where the fantasy genre hardly existed. Not so modern authors. He had to invent his own rules and he had to make the work acceptable. Readers knew what English was about in those days - I'm not saying that this is why the book is so beautifully written, but the fact remains that it is. So beautifully written, in fact, and so huge in scope, that LOTR is still being sold in massive numbers. The modern groundrules are those set by Tolkien. Sure, narrative style may be based more upon that of later writers, but find me a pre-Tolkien elf which doesn't resemble a pixie on a toadstool more than anything else. Find me a supernatural villain before Sauron and the Nazgul who contains such dread. Even Dracula was dealt with sympathetically by Bram Stoker. Find me any such complete world - before OR after Tolkien.

You might guess I'm a Tolkien fan. I'd actually argue against my own points by using the example of my other great weakness - Ursula Le Guin - but I think the points are still valid. Tolkien was, in my opinion, the creator of the genre. Others may imitate, still others may rebel and move in other directions - but the fact remains that the debt owed by any modern fantasy writer to Tolkien is immeasurable.

 

[Pyan]

We're more fussy nowadays. Consumer sovereignty and all that you know.

Sorry to disagree, but I think we (as in the book-buying public) are actually less fussy these days.

When LotR was published, Fantasy (and note that I am careful not to include Science Fiction here) was a very small market...the author and the publishers had no great expectations of any kind of volume sales, and there was really no competition on the shelves. Now there's many, many writers, the market is huge, and the demand for it is enormous. If you told a publisher these days that a book would take 20 years to complete, they'd be most unlikely to take you on - but that demand has got to be met.

Nowadays, most people (not Chronners, obviously!) accept storylines that are weak, timelines that don't hang together, and characters that are derivetive, to put it mildly. It's more down to the publicity than the quality of the writing, IMHO - how else can you explain the success of Mr Paolini, to pluck an example from the air...?

 

[Overread]

I have to agree that marketing is making a mockery of standards across the board (not only books, films (pet hate that!), manufacture, tv etc...)
Its seems the maxim now is not to make something successful, strong and lasting but to make something that just does the job but not quite. Then make another that patches some holes, but not all. Then another which patches more holes, but opens up its own new holes - and the cycle continues

 

[Clansman]

Pyan and OR have the right of it. Editors tend not to make decisions about which books to publish. Marketing makes these decisions. Look at the huge effort that it took to bring Steven Erikson's books to the fore, despite their obvious quality. The publisher responded to public demand created by places like the Chrons, as opposed to a good editor saying "this is a really talented author, we should market this book like crazy". The publishers' marketing departments make more of the decisions regarding books today, which explains guys like Paolini (I won't bother trying to read his stuff, as I trust the Chrons indictment of him (must be handy having publisher parents)) and Goodkind.

Tolkien endures not because he was the first of the modern fantasy authors (which, as JD Worthington will tell you, is very much a matter of debate). He endures because the writing is beautiful and old, the characters are distinct and growing, the story is remarkably compelling, the themes hit at the very heart of human existence (namely good v. evil, on the personal and global scale), and the creation of the background for the story (the description) was so detailed that it comes alive. Few of todays authors can approach this standard, because they don't get 20 years to work on stuff. Tolkien's greatest successes came from his hobby, namely writing about Middle Earth, but he spent most of his time as professor of English.

There are, however, authors who are worthy of being called his successors. Some of the great epic writers, like Erikson, Wurts and Martin leap immediately to mind. Thank goodness for the Chrons, so that others can learn of these books!

 

[Overread]

ahem Clansman -- you forgot GRRM (has to be said before the disciples find and burn you for missing him off the list )

 

[Pyan]

ahem Clansman -- you forgot GRRM (has to be said before the disciples find and burn you for missing him off the list )

I don't know whether that was deliberate or not on Clansman's part...but I personally wouldn't put him in that list, mainly because he doesn't offer me any kind of hero-figure to follow, which I think is essential in a "proper" High Fantasy book, and another reason why JRRT's writing is superior, IMAO.

I know that GRRM's writing has been praised for his willingness to kill off major characters, and JRRT has been criticised for just the opposite...but dammit, I read a book to enjoy the story, and if every person you like is slaughtered, it puts me off a bit.

 

[Overread]

Does anyone make it to the end of a feast for crows??

wait don't tell me!!

and out of interest who is the Hero character in Malazan - there are rather a lot of candidates for that role
I think high fantasy can work without a hero - or rather to say it can work very well with many heros.