Quote:
Originally Posted by Inziladun
Could it be said that Tolkien, with LOTR, took Fantasy fiction and showed that it could not only be popular, but also respectable?
|
Only partially. Previous fantasy tales that had already been very popular including notably William Morris’ romances and Lord Dunsany’s many tales. James Branch Cabell was also reasonably popular.
These were very
respectable writers.
What is surprising is that their success was not followed up by other authors. The conventional wisdom was that fantasy just didn’t normally sell, except in children’s books. The conventional wisdom may have been true. George MacDonald’s two adult fantasies sold poorly. Evangeline Walton’s first
Mabinogion romance was published in 1936 and died.
People seemingly were really not interested in romances about magic which didn’t exist.
Sf changed that. People were ready to read tales about marvelous adventures that possibly really might happen, some day, even if many sf tales were badly written. Sf had reached the level of penetration of the market where obvious and outright fantasy could be appreciated and would be purchased.
Then the genius who had written
The Hobbit produced an immense work for adults. It sold, and sold incredibly once it was available in paperback. But no-one was repeating Tolkien at once. He stood alone. Ballantine could at first only reprint older adult fantasy in an attempt to cash in on Tolkien.
Then very gradually new works of fantasy began to be printed. At the same time hardcover sf began appearing in bookstores. Sf had itself become respectable and in potential carried fantasy with it as it was mostly printed by the same paperback publishers.
But it was not until 1969 that Ballantine published Peter S. Beagle’s
A Fine and Private Place and
The Last Unicorn. Then Terry Brooks’
The Sword of Shanarra was published in 1974. It was from then onward that publication of new adult fantasy works became normal. But many Tolkien fans also do not consider liking
The Sword of Shanarra to be respectable. (I agree.)
Considering that
The Lord of the Rings saw its first complete publication in hardback in 1955, if Tolkien is compared to the Beatles, this is as though The Rolling Stones did not appear until 1970 instead of in 1962.
Tolkien is still not respectable according to many academics. They see
The Lord of the Rings just as a flash-in-the-pan like Harriet Beacher Stowe’s
Uncle Tom’s
Cabin, reputably the most popular novel in the 19th century. They keep waiting for the bubble to burst. That it hasn’t yet is to be blamed on the poor taste of current readers.