GOLLUM said:
Well I guess it all comes down to a matter of personal taste really. Like you I'm not really a fan of those authors you mention although for me Jordan is the best of that particular bunch and the only one I've stuck with although sometimes I wonder why....
Actually Tolkien is obviously a major heavyweight, grandaddy of the modern genre whatever you wish to label him as and this is the book that inspired me to first write but these days I don't think he stacks up that well in terms of prose or actual writing ability or for that matter general plot either when compared to some of the modern writers like Wolfe, Mieville, Erikson, Martin, Calvino, M John Harrison et al.... The one thing probably he still stands apart in is the worldbuilding and maybe it's not fair to compare writers in different eras like this but just what I feel.
*GOLLUM runs to higher ground to avoid beating by HedgeKnight and other Tolkien fans....
*
Gollum, just remember who Tolkien's contemporaries were - Mervyn Peake, Fritz Leiber, ER Eddison, Jack Vance, Clark Ashton Smith - it's not just a matter of different eras, it was that Tolkien wasn't an amazing writer. An amazing worldbuilder, yes, unquestionably. An amazing writer? No, despite being a great linguist. Everyone else has been picking easy targets - Jordan, Goodkind, Paolini. Tolkien seemed like more of a challenge (though I may have to resort to Moorcock if things turn bad).
Seriously, Tolkien is in a class with only a few other writers who helped shape literature as we know it today. Like 'em or not, they are not overrated - maybe underappreciated and scoffed at as "old school", but not overrated. Will those listed above and elsewhere has such a profound, everlasting effect on literature? I doubt it.
Tolkien had a big impact on fantasy. On literature as a whole he had very little. Tolkien's importance, though, is often overstated. First - the misconception that he created fantasy. Its so commonly stated you could be forgiven for thinking that he was the only author in fantasy before 1990, and that he's the only one worth reading, which is far from the case. Tolkien had an undoubtedly huge impact on epic fantasy - but that was often simply as people cashed in on his commercial success and created their own. Fantasy would have existed without Tolkien, albeit in a different form.
And Tolkien has a hugely overshadowed other major influences in fantasy - Michael Moorcock, Fritz Leiber and Jack Vance together probably have had an equal or greater influence on fantasy as a whole than Tolkien - almost all Sword and Sorcery since can be traced to these three authors or to Robert Howard, a lot of epic fantasy has been influenced by them, Pratchett has been, New Wave has been - a large part of fantasy. And what about Mervyn Peake? He's probably one of the most important in terms of fantasy, but hideously under-read. Its rare to see a New Weird author who doesn't name Peake as a major influence.
As for influencing literature, I don't believe Tolkien comes close to the likes of Franz Kafka (who writes speculative fiction), and some of the magic realist authors have probably had more of an effect on literature as a whole - Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Salman Rushdie etc.
And so far I've only talked about importance/influence, perhaps the easiest area to defend Tolkien on. In terms of the novels themselves? First things first, IMO the Silmarillion is a far superior novel to the Lord of the Rings. But focusing on LotR:
Characterisation - some characters are given a bit of depth - Frodo, Sam, Gollum, Faramir, Denethor, Boromir. There are a few more, but not many. Gollum is an excellent piece of characterisation. The others are a slight improvement on archetypes, but still don't move beyond two dimensions. And then you have the entire evil side - completely devoid of characterisation. And the plot - full of deus ex machinas, invincible characters on the good side and excuses when they aren't (oh no, Boromir died, but don't worry, he was trying to steal the ring so he wasn't actually good). The central problem is that his characters are one-dimensional as a rule. They may be very well done for one-dimensional characters, but that just can't compete with making them realistic.
But then, of course, this is unfair, he was trying to show off his world. We don't accuse Harrison of this problem. But was his world that interesting? Sure, it was hugely developed. But when you look into it, it's actually quite simplistic. Races didn't live together at all, but still could communicate with ease. Each race was given a specific area where they lived. And while there may have been a hugely detailed world, Tolkien just didn't have the writing ability to evocatively portray the atmosphere. The most interesting places he often did little description for while he did huge amounts for some of the monotonous landscapes. But in prose, Michael Moorcock's Epic Pooh is still the best argument against Tolkien.
Plot - as I've said, deus ex machinas, entirely predictable, characters act to fit the narrow confines of the plot, rather than driving it. Nothing to get hugely excited over.
Pacing - often too slow. The Fellowship of the Ring was extremely tedious, due to overdescription and a lack of action throughout. Did LotR need all its space? We tend to think that its concise simply because it's a lot shorter than most series today, but I think it could have been much more effective if there'd been a few hundred pages less.
If we're to compare this to the other major fantasy series published around this time, Mervyn Peake's Gormenghast, it pales in comparison. Peake at his worst can more evocatively portray atmosphere than Tolkien at his best. Peake's characters drive the plot, are 3-dimensional, unpredictable, ambiguous and often shocking. That means an excellent plot, with excellent characterisation, and an excellent world in which its all portrayed.
Pacing - actually quite fast, when you get past the writing style. As long as you understand that pace doesn't necessarily require movement, then you'll see a huge amount happens in each of the Gormenghast books, but not at the cost of any description.
Tolkien's LotR may be good - but it's not a masterpiece, and certainly not the only, or best, work of speculative fiction available.
You know, this has actually generated far less of an outcry than I expected. Perhaps saying Dune and LotR were over-rated just wasn't controversial enough. Perhaps I'll have to choose a new target - Martin.
[I hear thunder rumbling in the background. Now it's only a matter of time until the lightning strikes.]
