The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post

Lalwendë · 01-26-2006, 06:36 AM

I'm not a particular fan of fantasy. There I've said it.

But what this actually means is that I find most of it pales in comparison to Tolkien; I have read a fair amount of other fantasy fiction and I'd rate some of it in my ever-changing mental list of favourite books, but a lot of it I either find tedious or I forget about it soon after reading as it doesn't have the 'substance' to affect me above the level of simple entertainment. For me there really is nothing like Tolkien, his work is unique. Other work which comes under the banner of fantasy which I also love tends to have this unique quality - Gormenghast, His Dark Materials and Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell.

I do find the sense of 'magic' or of being in another world in almost any kind of fiction if it is good enough; an amazing book does not have to possess the traditional hallmarks of fantasy for it to have that effect on me. For example, I can be reading Return of the Native and be transported to 19th century Dorset; it might as well be fantasy because this too is some place I am never going to be able to physically visit.

Perhaps one of the reasons that Tolkien's work grabs me where other fantasy does not is that it is not formulaic, it is never stupid, and it is honest. The story of Middle-earth ends right where it needs to so it is not tedious. The story, the most important thing, has a good plot. The characters are not stereotypical, nor are they patronisingly forced to be modern. And there is depth, enough left raw around the edges to allow the imagination to roam.

Tolkien's work is also incredibly modern. Strange, for a world which is filled with archaic references to swords and wizards and ladies in flowing gowns. If I tried to write the same I'm sure it would end up seeming as though I'd tried to force my characters into such a world - rather like the way costume dramas always age badly, reflecting more of the fashions of the day than any kind of period 'authenticity' - in fact those which try to be the most 'authentic' funnily enough seem to be those which date most badly! Usually the hairstyles....

Happily, Tolkien's world has lots of seemingly out of place things such as umbrellas and Hobbits in 18th century garb and taters and women who go off to war. If he had tried to be authentically antiquarian then Eowyn would have been locked into her chastity belt and it might have all grown a bit tedious. Maybe this is why I find Tolkien more satisfying; he allowed this world to develop on its own instead of trying to recreate any period in history which is what I find so many other fantasy writers doing.

And that's only touching the surface of why Tolkien's better than the rest!

01-26-2006, 06:36 AM	#15
Lalwendë A Mere Boggart Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: under the bed Posts: 4,737	I'm not a particular fan of fantasy. There I've said it. But what this actually means is that I find most of it pales in comparison to Tolkien; I have read a fair amount of other fantasy fiction and I'd rate some of it in my ever-changing mental list of favourite books, but a lot of it I either find tedious or I forget about it soon after reading as it doesn't have the 'substance' to affect me above the level of simple entertainment. For me there really is nothing like Tolkien, his work is unique. Other work which comes under the banner of fantasy which I also love tends to have this unique quality - Gormenghast, His Dark Materials and Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell. I do find the sense of 'magic' or of being in another world in almost any kind of fiction if it is good enough; an amazing book does not have to possess the traditional hallmarks of fantasy for it to have that effect on me. For example, I can be reading Return of the Native and be transported to 19th century Dorset; it might as well be fantasy because this too is some place I am never going to be able to physically visit. Perhaps one of the reasons that Tolkien's work grabs me where other fantasy does not is that it is not formulaic, it is never stupid, and it is honest. The story of Middle-earth ends right where it needs to so it is not tedious. The story, the most important thing, has a good plot. The characters are not stereotypical, nor are they patronisingly forced to be modern. And there is depth, enough left raw around the edges to allow the imagination to roam. Tolkien's work is also incredibly modern. Strange, for a world which is filled with archaic references to swords and wizards and ladies in flowing gowns. If I tried to write the same I'm sure it would end up seeming as though I'd tried to force my characters into such a world - rather like the way costume dramas always age badly, reflecting more of the fashions of the day than any kind of period 'authenticity' - in fact those which try to be the most 'authentic' funnily enough seem to be those which date most badly! Usually the hairstyles.... Happily, Tolkien's world has lots of seemingly out of place things such as umbrellas and Hobbits in 18th century garb and taters and women who go off to war. If he had tried to be authentically antiquarian then Eowyn would have been locked into her chastity belt and it might have all grown a bit tedious. Maybe this is why I find Tolkien more satisfying; he allowed this world to develop on its own instead of trying to recreate any period in history which is what I find so many other fantasy writers doing. And that's only touching the surface of why Tolkien's better than the rest! __________________ Gordon's alive!