Difference between Tolkien and the 'modern Fantasy' authors?

[Guppy]

Tolkien is a legend, deserves to be on the top shelf...but I have wondered from time to time...if he was publishing The Hobbit today, as a first time author how successful would he be?

 

[Clansman]

Personally, I think that The Hobbit would do quite well. I began reading Harry Potter to my kids last summer, and as I read The Philosopher's Stone, I thought that it had very much the same "feel" as The Hobbit, which I read to them just before starting Harry Potter. The Hobbit starts quickly, has action throughout, is funny, and has a strong, resolved ending. Marketed as a children's book, just as Harry Potter was, I think it would do well.

LOTR, on the other hand, might not, as it is very "clean" compared to, say, GRRM's stuff. But then, had not LOTR been published, the modern fantasy trilogy type publication that copied, echoed, or paid tribute to LOTR might never have happened, and LOTR might make as big a splash today as it did in the late 1950's and the 1960's, as something very new and different. What if? is fun, but it remains speculative at best, as we will never really know, will we?

 

[Siberian]

I think it's a bit unfair to compare Tolkien to modern professional writers. Not everyone can spend much of their life on creating the whole mythology and languages. And then work years to complete one book, meticulously checking all the details.

As for differences with today's epic fantasy writers, the first that comes to mind is total lack of sex (despite some romance) and of course, little violence without the graphical details. To the effect that when action does happen it stands out all the more (Eowyn/Merry vs. Nazgul, for example). Now, I'm not a puritan and I do enjoy exciting fights, but sometimes too much sex and violence can distract from the story and deeper meaning (if there's any, that is).

Also notice how each confrontation, be it with weapons or "magic" is always a battle of the wills in the first place. It's especially evident when it comes to the mighties (Gandalf, Aragorn, Witch-king) but even hobbits can appear stronger and taller to much larger orcs. The primary weapon of Nazgul is not their sorcery but the fear and apathy they instill in people. Psychological warfare, as we would say today.

 

[j d worthington]

I think it's a bit unfair to compare Tolkien to modern professional writers. Not everyone can spend much of their life on creating the whole mythology and languages. And then work years to complete one book, meticulously checking all the details.

I'm not sure in what way this makes it "unfair" to make such a comparison, though. Could you explain a bit more why you feel it is unfair?

And quite a few writers work at creating their "world" (or universe, in some cases) throughout their lives, even though they are publishing parts of the work throughout their career. Moorcock comes to mind, with his ever-growing multiverse, which both broadens and deepens as he goes along. Others continue to evolve more detailed ideas of their created worlds, but these may lack the depth or resonance. Both are done by professional writers (which, when it comes to his fantasy, Tolkien was not). Is it unfair to critically compare the two? To comare them to Tolkien's work? (Or Dunsany's, or Eddison's, etc.?)

 

[Siberian]

Oh, I don't mean that you can't compare other fantasy authors to Tolkien. After all, they might share some things in common even without direct borrowing. I think we shouldn't expect to be professional authors like Tolkien who didn't publish much (2 novels set in Middle-earth during his lifetime) and could spend years polishing his writing as he didn't have deadline.

 

[j d worthington]

Fair enough; and thanks for the clarification....

 

[Dimentio]

I have to say, I disagree about that. While Tolkein was a decent author-well enough to get published, and good story ideas-he was a little too stuffy and conservative about certain things.

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.

Second, modern authors tend to paint characters better...I could barely get through LotR due to the fact that there wasn't much in the way of character description, at least, from what I got from it.

Tolkein deserves credit where it's due him, but modern authors tend to do a bit better, I think...especially David Eddings.

With all respect, I disagree.

If Tolkien is considered a fantasy author, then all the others are dwarves in comparision. But I do not consider him to be a fantasy author. I consider him to be an epic storyteller, with an understanding about how premodern peoples in Europe thought and imagined their world. He constructed his world from linguistics.

And, pre-modern societies are often sexist and misogynistic. That independent whether if Tolkien took any positioned stance towards it or not.

The mythos of Middle Earth is Germanic, and it allows for women to sometimes break their traditional roles. But Eowyn against the Nazgûl lord should not be interpreted as proto-feminism, but as the Germanic warrior code applied to women (which could fight alongside the men historically in Germanic tribes).

Most of Tolkien's story is not really about the characters, but about race and blood. It is a deeply reactionary and romanticist ideal which Tolkien is painting. The guy was a friggin anarcho-monarchist!

 

[j d worthington]

Most of Tolkien's story is not really about the characters, but about race and blood. It is a deeply reactionary and romanticist ideal which Tolkien is painting. The guy was a friggin anarcho-monarchist!

Uh-oh; here we go again....

 

[The Procrastinator]

Anarcho-monarchist...anti-progress...fascist-environmentalist...anti-urban...sexist-misogynist...antediluvian-romanticist...where will it all end?

 

[Dimentio]

Anarcho-monarchist...anti-progress...fascist-environmentalist...anti-urban...sexist-misogynist...antediluvian-romanticist...where will it all end?

I don't see it as bad traits necessarily. It was not meant as a polemic.

Tolkien is one of my house gods. I have no problems with his romanticist ideals.

If you have, live on with it.

 

[The Procrastinator]

I know you didn't mean it in a bad way. I have no problem with Tolkien either. I was being ironic.

Not so sure about this as a blanket statement though:

Most of Tolkien's story is not really about the characters, but about race and blood.

OK, there's heaps about race in there, but the role of many of the major characters seems to be to step beyond race, on the whole. The friendship of Gimli and Legolas - the bravery and heroism of the hobbits, the "least" of the races - the blood-mixing that goes on at the conclusion of the story - Elf and Human (Arwen and Aragorn) - Rohirrim and Dunedain (Eowyn and Faramir) - in many ways, the Nine Companions are characters that prove to be exceptions to their race. And in many ways, the story as a whole is about the coming together of the races and the ending, or blurring, of divisions. I know its not as simplistic as that - I have to go to work and don't have time to wax ineloquent still further - but the element is there as a strong counterbalance.

 

[Dimentio]

I know you didn't mean it in a bad way. I have no problem with Tolkien either. I was being ironic.

Not so sure about this as a blanket statement though:



OK, there's heaps about race in there, but the role of many of the major characters seems to be to step beyond race, on the whole. The friendship of Gimli and Legolas - the bravery and heroism of the hobbits, the "least" of the races - the blood-mixing that goes on at the conclusion of the story - Elf and Human (Arwen and Aragorn) - Rohirrim and Dunedain (Eowyn and Faramir) - in many ways, the Nine Companions are characters that prove to be exceptions to their race. And in many ways, the story as a whole is about the coming together of the races and the ending, or blurring, of divisions. I know its not as simplistic as that - I have to go to work and don't have time to wax ineloquent still further - but the element is there as a strong counterbalance.

Really, the core of the story is the choice to reject evil. But the building stones is not about overcoming differences, but to overcome them in order to reject evil.

 

[AE35Unit]

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.
.

Yes but thats more to do with the time they were written. Back then women were still second class citizens and to be a successful author you have to go with the flow,or rather,you had to back then. If he had made his lead character a strong woman the publishers may well have baulked at that idea and probably made him re write them as children,a la Narnia.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

It would have gone against the tenor of his own mind and the academic setting in which he lived and worked.

He was a product of his time and environment.

As, I suspect, are we all.

 

[Pravuil]

Some people complain about Tolkien being hard to read...Well, my opinion to that is hmphh. Anyhow, to the substance of this post: I find LOTR is much more delightful to read if you read it as you would a Greco-Roman classic or any piece of classic literature for that matter. I've been reading Tolkien like that so much lately that I've came to the conclusion that that was the way Tolkien intentioned LOTR to be read: as not only a mythology in and of itself but as a classic. This take on LOTR was undoubtedly inspired by my reading the Illiad, Homer, and Beowulf once more before (once more) reading the LOTR. I'm curious whether or not how many other people (if any at all) read Tolkien's LOTR from this perspective?

 

[Siberian]

Yes but thats more to do with the time they were written. Back then women were still second class citizens and to be a successful author you have to go with the flow,or rather,you had to back then. If he had made his lead character a strong woman the publishers may well have baulked at that idea and probably made him re write them as children,a la Narnia.

Tolkien is not chauvinist. If he was, do you think he'd have such strong female characters as Galadriel and Eowyn? (and more in Silmarillion). Yes, there're more memorable male characters than female, but I guess it's a question of quality over quantity

 

[Arwena]

Tolkien was certainly a man of his time. But his fantasy was real in the sense it was about real choices we make, his followers sometimes get bogged in the priorty of creating fantasy worlds.

 

[BAYLOR]

Tolkien and Robert E Howard were two of the most import figures in modern fantasy.

 

[Mirannan]

I know you didn't mean it in a bad way. I have no problem with Tolkien either. I was being ironic.

Not so sure about this as a blanket statement though:



OK, there's heaps about race in there, but the role of many of the major characters seems to be to step beyond race, on the whole. The friendship of Gimli and Legolas - the bravery and heroism of the hobbits, the "least" of the races - the blood-mixing that goes on at the conclusion of the story - Elf and Human (Arwen and Aragorn) - Rohirrim and Dunedain (Eowyn and Faramir) - in many ways, the Nine Companions are characters that prove to be exceptions to their race. And in many ways, the story as a whole is about the coming together of the races and the ending, or blurring, of divisions. I know its not as simplistic as that - I have to go to work and don't have time to wax ineloquent still further - but the element is there as a strong counterbalance.

Arwen and Aragorn are both of mixed race, in fact; they share Earendil as an ancestor. Regarding Dunedain/Rohirrim - well, it's quite likely that Dunedain form a part of the racial mix the Rohirrim came from and, in any case, they are more like than many pairs of human races today. Sub-Saharan blacks and Northern Europeans, for example.

 

[lynnfredricks]

Tolkien is not chauvinist. If he was, do you think he'd have such strong female characters as Galadriel and Eowyn? (and more in Silmarillion). Yes, there're more memorable male characters than female, but I guess it's a question of quality over quantity

I agree. Some characters do fall into type. Galadriel does a lot, but off-stage, so to speak (casting down Dol Guldur), but she is literally the oldest and wisest of elves we know of (outside of what we guess or is confirmed outside of LOTR) that understands the mind of Sauron the best - without being corrupted. Arwyn is the 'prize' princess in context, yet I think that's just fine given she's likely the greatest motivator for Aragorn - her story I feel would be a distraction, but I would imagine that she'd be an extremely interesting character without having to be on the battlefield. I find the story of Eowyn among the most moving and triumphant in LOTR.

Let me toss out a follow up to this. All of our nine walkers are male. If one or more were female, which would have had the least impact on the story line (meaning, changing the story line the least)?