LOTR vs. Other Fantasy

[Mithalwen]

I don't read a lot of fantasy but I did read Eragon earlier in the year - partly out of curiosity regarding the author. Although I have been generally repulsed by what I perceived as Tolkien ripoffs " (Dwarf lords of Dyspepsia" kind of thing) I really enjoyed this - it isn't in Tolkiens league as far as the creation goes and it isn't as challenging as Pullman, but it is a good read - I didn't want to put it down. I was catching the train to work and I resented the short drive back from the station!!! It is derivative of Tolkien but Tolkien used myth as inspiration. He did not invent the idea of the Elves going into /coming from the West. Tuartha de Danaan anyone?

I cannot imagine getting immersed in these books like I do in Tolkien - the depth isn't there but it is a well crafted book and is clearly written and I might say gets you in to the story very quickly and he doesn't waste information. It is a much more approachable book than LOTR. I would point out that not all teenagers are avid readers and as a former teacher, I think that this would be a great book particularly for those who would find the complexity of Pullman and Tolkien to daunting and CS Lewis too old fashioned.

Just because champagne is best, it doesn't nullify the virtues of good, clean water....

[Cailín]

I think I'm going to say something now that will make everyone here hate me.

I have read a lot of fantasy and I don't think The Lord of the Rings is the best out there. Before everyone starts attacking me - it's just my personal opinion. And I do think Tolkien is wonderful and I can see why he seems like the greatest to a large group of people. It's just that I have always been very interested in the (late) Medieval period and Tolkien's work is clearly inspired by the Heroic period that preceded the Middle Ages.

That said, I often notice I tend to get a little annoyed at the many Tolkien rip-offs out there. Wheel of Time is a good example and there are other epic fantasies that are disturbingly like Lord of the Rings. Similar names don't disturb me much (do you have any idea how hard it is to come up with phonetically possible names that have not been used before?) but Tolkien introduced a lot of clichés that many writers can't seem to avoid.

For example, a regular fantasy-hero is born and raised in an area that is isolated from the rest of the world. The inhabitants are kind, but ignorant. For some tragic reason he has to leave this place, encounters evil beings wearing dark cloaks who live in towers. The friendly Elves live in woods, Dwarfs live in caves. Granted, this may seem most logical when examining mythology, but the Irish fairies definitely weren't all wood-sy.

I have never read Eragon, but from what I've heard it's a huge rip-off of both Star Wars and Lord of the Rings - but what else can we expect from such a young author? I personally rather read something less well written with an interesting, new idea than a book which might have been a good read if it had not been written before.

Ah well, it's hard to avoid any Tolkien-ish influence if you're an aspiring fantasy writer. LotR is much like the Bible in that way.

- Cailín

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Cailín

I have never read Eragon, but from what I've heard it's a huge rip-off of both Star Wars and Lord of the Rings - but what else can we expect from such a young author? I personally rather read something less well written with an interesting, new idea than a book which might have been a good read if it had not been written before.

- Cailín

I don't hate you but I couldn't disagree with you more on this. Basically as far as ideas go "there is nothing new under the sun" - you can reduce all stories to a combination of certain elements. Everything has been done before. Shakespeare was not original in his stories, Tolkien was not original in his stories but they are far more read than Kalevala and Holinshed. The writing is everything - how they structure the plot, how they handle character, dialogue and so forth. Their use of language. So I would rather read something derivative (and what isn't?) and well written than something allegedly original and poorly written. I have got to the stage in life where I won't waste any of it reading stuff that is badly written. Good writing gives more pleasure each time you read it not less.

Take Austen - her stories are fairly similar and are about the simplest in the world - as Maupassant says "with love there is one story - always the same". But her books are so beautifully written I could happily have them as my desert island choice and although (like probably every englishwoman of my age) very good memories of the BBC adaptation of Pride and Prejudice, I will go to the new film to see HOW they have treated it.

I am not putting Paolini in Austen's league ar near it ... but I think he is a good writer and will be interested to see how he matures. And I think it might be fairer to actually read the book rather than criticise it on hearsay as a general principle.

[Cailín]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

I don't hate you but I couldn't disagree with you more on this. Basically as far as ideas go "there is nothing new under the sun" - you can reduce all stories to a combination of certain elements. Everything has been done before. Shakespeare was not original in his stories, Tolkien was not original in his stories but they are far more read than Kalevala and Holinshed. The writing is everything - how they structure the plot, how they handle character, dialogue and so forth. Their use of language. So I would rather read something derivative (and what isn't?) and well written than something allegedly original and poorly written. I have got to the stage in life where I won't waste any of it reading stuff that is badly written. Good writing gives more pleasure each time you read it not less.

I do get your point, but I think you misunderstood what I meant by a story that has been written before. I mean not just an intertextual relationship or use of the same cliches/themes - for this is inavoidable - but an actual near-copy of something that has been written before. See, of course it is not so that after Tolkien wrote about Elves, nobody should write about them ever again. But if these Elves are wise, silvery-haired creatures that came to (insert Middle-Earthy name here) over the sea, I feel slightly annoyed. More so if the hero's name is Bobo and he's a Loppit (no, never saw this really happen).

Take Jane Austen again, for example (I happen to be a huge fan, despite me not being English). With Pride and Prejudice, she actually set the tone for all current much beloved romances: the arrogant, slightly evil and totally not sociable male first constantly fights with the heroine but manages to seduce her in the end - well, you know the story. I don't know if you ever read Bridget Jones' Diary, but it is very much inspired by Pride and Prejudice: the same story in the present time. Still, it is a delightful read and the author gives such an interesting twist to the story, nobody minds it is not an actual original idea.

Maybe it is because I spend a good deal of my time critiquing stories written by children. You cannot really expect them to write perfectly yet. I always find, though, there are two types of aspiring writers among kids. Some take their favorite stories and try to tell them in their own words - most of the time these become literal copies, while others try to come up with a somewhat new and original idea. I always find the latter more promising (even though they mix up evil stepmother with evil debtmother, which is extremely strange and confusing. )

I agree though, I may have judged Eragon too quickly.

[Mithalwen]

Well I did enjoy Bridget Jones (but few of the imitations), and if you refer to post 11, I am hardly a fan of Tolkien copies. I picked up Eragon fully prepared to condemn it as a travesty.

As I say I enjoyed it. Clearly it is tolkien inspired but it is more "homage" than rip off to my mind. It is not set in Middle Earth but is not entirely incompatible.. a bit like Lyra's Oxford. I haven't read a lot of fantasy - I am fascinated by Middle Earth, it's culture and languages and so other fantasy books I look at seem very superficial (NB I exclude Discworld ). Maybe if I read more fantasy I would find Eragon more derivative but the story did not seem to be from Tolkien even if aspects of the setting could be. I don't think it is a "Great Book" but I did find it a good read and will be interested to see what Paolini produces when he has got out a bit more...