Tolkien over others - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Bêthberry · 01-25-2006, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by narfforc

The story Tolkien has created is probably the last great story ever told, and as much as people try and imitate (pick the names yourself), the efforts are but weak copies in many cases. I called this A Never Ending Story because I believe it is, I have read countless stories of The Fourth Age, of obscure times and people, written by people like us for people like us (no harm in that). It is through us this story will continue and grow. To say that the works of Tolkien are engraved in my being is an understatement, I feel nothing like that for any other written word.

Oh my gosh, narfforc, for a moment there I thought you had LotR confused with that Biblical epic The Greatest Story Ever Told but then I realised you meant simply that it is the last great one written. I sure wouldn't think Tolkien would like any graven images made of his work.

Anguirel · 01-25-2006, 08:03 AM

Is anyone else getting a Tolkien, Tolkien, uber alles vibe from this thread??

Anschluss with Narnia!

Child of the 7th Age · 01-25-2006, 09:28 AM

A number of posters have made excellent statements about what they see in Tolkien that is outstanding or unique: believable characters, plausibility of plot and world, terrific plot, and appropriateness of language. I could second many of these points. Yet, for me, there is something more going on. Perhaps, Mythopoeia summed it up best. It isn't the characteristics that I see and admire in Tolkien that defines his importance as a writer. Rather it is the personal impact--intellectual, emotional, and imaginative--that those writings have had on me over the years. And it has, indeed, been many years!

I can name individual fantasy writers who made skillful use of language or others who do an excellent job with plotting. Yet, when you get right down to it, I can think of no other creator of myth who so hits me in the solar plexus as Tolkien. My reading of LotR and the wider Legendarium has always been tangled up with my search to find myself. With other fantasy writers, I am reading about someplace far away, a distant and exotic world that is very attractive and holds me spellbound for a given space of time. I set the book down, and the spell ends. With Tolkien, the characters and situations have a much more intimate meaning--they speak to my own personal situations and needs. Because of that, the impact of the writings linger long after I've turned the last page.

I grew up in a tight and loving working class family. My dad was a factory worker. It was a world with great depth, but also a very narrow world. I was searching for a way out. Like Samwise, I was chasing after Elves and Dragons in a culture that was fixed on meat and potatoes. I could identify with Sam and other characters in Lord of the Rings in a way that was immediate and personal. There were other times in life when I was going through periods of definition or struggle. And often in those situations I reread Tolkien and found some episode or character that spoke to me on a personal level. It wasn't just the surface action that attracted me: it was the values and meaning that framed and stood behind those actions. From year to year, my point of interest changed. Sometimes it was Tolkien's loving descriptions of the earth, the struggles that Frodo endured, or the implicit sprituality that shines through certain characters and their ethical choices. But always there was something worth looking at.

I have read a ton of fantasy over the years, starting in the mid-sixties. That was when the Ballentine series came out, along with Ace, Daw, and DelRey, the major providers of fantasy and sf. I've found many authors I've enjoyed to the hilt, but few have made as personal impact an impact as Tolkien. The one other fantasy author I would put in this category, and Cailin mentioned him earlier, is T.H. White and The Once and Future King. Interestingly, I recently ran across an interview with Shippey where he talks about his own affinity for White and how White and Tolkien were in some sense similar. Both authors were affected and repelled by the horrors of war in the 20th century, yet recognized the fact that the conditions we face in the world sometimes require good men to stand up and fight. In both White and Tolkien, I sense what difficult dilemmas the world sometimes presents to us and, as I get older, I gain greater appreciation of how these two authors managed to encapsulate this dilemma in the actions and choices of their characters.

Anguirel · 01-25-2006, 10:02 AM

I am completely with Child about The Once and Future King. However, while many people admire The Sword in the Stone most out of the TH White novels, I must admit to find it, with the posthumously published Book of Merlyn, not nearly as thrilling as the others. The Malory influence is less pervasive, the authorial pieces of fancifulness rather too numerous, the childishness avoiding any real sense of danger, the appearance of Robin Wood in retrospect rather annoying. (Though White's take on Kay's character is fascinating.)

The Queen of Air and Darkness, for me, was a real improvement. Battles, vast battles. O Scotland, Scotland. The appearance of the family I most enjoy reading of in White and Malory, the Orkney brothers, Gawaine, Gaheris, Agravaine and Mordred. And in their mother, Morgause, a character of spine-curdling beauty begging to be fleshed out. White described Gawaine as "a swine with a stroke of human decency". I would describe him as "my favourite figure in legend or literature".

In the Ill-Made Knight, we see an almost unique construction-the character of Chretien de Troyes' Lancelot modelled first in Malory's image, then in White's. The result is a Lancelot far more likeable than Malory's or Tennyson's, a truly self-doubting creature. The Candle in the Wind lays the blame for Arthur's downfall too heavily on the orkney's, but it is nonetheless incredibly tragic and moving.

So...yes, I would put White beside the completely dissimilar Tolkien. They also had this in common. Both left trails, irresistable to me, to wider mythologies; White to Malory's vast yet thoroughly readable, sometimes even touchingly personal, Le Morte D'Arthur; Tolkien of course to the Silmarillion. Devouring both of these, I was not alone in comparing the sons of Feanor to those of Lot and Morgause. I felt great sympathy for both families. I desperately wanted to see them redeemed, but knew I couldn't.

Couldn't with Tolkien anyway. But even Malory, great though he is, is just one slant, though indisputably the most comprehensive, on King Arthur. So was born my Gawain novel, working title Hawk of May till I dispiritedly discovered some American lady novelist had pinched it already. Expect it 2038 approx...

In conclusion, the greatest fantasy writer is Malory. Then Edmund Spenser. Then conceivably Tolkien/White...

narfforc · 01-25-2006, 11:59 AM

It has ever been difficult for me to place my love of all things Arthurian, behind that of Tolkien. I came to read Tolkien after reading childrens books on Arthur ie Roger Lancelyn Green. My interest has grown apace, until I have well over fifty books on the subject of Arthur. I agree with Anguirel, that Malory is a great story teller (one of the best), yet he had source material, on which he expanded. Tolkien took a blueprint and wrote his own story. I am sorry to hear of your Hawk of May story, I have a copy of the Gillian Bradshaw book, and on the back it reads: WILL APPEAL TO THOSE WHO HAVE ENJOYED TOLKIEN'S WORKS. Let me say it did.

P.S Sorry Bethberry but I don't see the Bible as the Greatest Story Ever Told. It is The Greatest Myth Ever Invented.

Anguirel · 01-25-2006, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by narfforc

I am sorry to hear of your Hawk of May story, I have a copy of the Gillian Bradshaw book...

Oh, it'll still happen. Eventually. I just need a new title. I'm planning to change it to Mayhawk (lame) or The Skull at Dover (slightly depressing) or something else...

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!

01-25-2006, 08:03 AM	#2
Anguirel Byronic Brand Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: The 1590s Posts: 2,778	Is anyone else getting a Tolkien, Tolkien, uber alles vibe from this thread?? Anschluss with Narnia! __________________ Among the friendly dead, being bad at games did not seem to matter -Il Lupo Fenriso

01-25-2006, 09:28 AM	#3
Child of the 7th Age Spirit of the Lonely Star Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 5,133	A number of posters have made excellent statements about what they see in Tolkien that is outstanding or unique: believable characters, plausibility of plot and world, terrific plot, and appropriateness of language. I could second many of these points. Yet, for me, there is something more going on. Perhaps, Mythopoeia summed it up best. It isn't the characteristics that I see and admire in Tolkien that defines his importance as a writer. Rather it is the personal impact--intellectual, emotional, and imaginative--that those writings have had on me over the years. And it has, indeed, been many years! I can name individual fantasy writers who made skillful use of language or others who do an excellent job with plotting. Yet, when you get right down to it, I can think of no other creator of myth who so hits me in the solar plexus as Tolkien. My reading of LotR and the wider Legendarium has always been tangled up with my search to find myself. With other fantasy writers, I am reading about someplace far away, a distant and exotic world that is very attractive and holds me spellbound for a given space of time. I set the book down, and the spell ends. With Tolkien, the characters and situations have a much more intimate meaning--they speak to my own personal situations and needs. Because of that, the impact of the writings linger long after I've turned the last page. I grew up in a tight and loving working class family. My dad was a factory worker. It was a world with great depth, but also a very narrow world. I was searching for a way out. Like Samwise, I was chasing after Elves and Dragons in a culture that was fixed on meat and potatoes. I could identify with Sam and other characters in Lord of the Rings in a way that was immediate and personal. There were other times in life when I was going through periods of definition or struggle. And often in those situations I reread Tolkien and found some episode or character that spoke to me on a personal level. It wasn't just the surface action that attracted me: it was the values and meaning that framed and stood behind those actions. From year to year, my point of interest changed. Sometimes it was Tolkien's loving descriptions of the earth, the struggles that Frodo endured, or the implicit sprituality that shines through certain characters and their ethical choices. But always there was something worth looking at. I have read a ton of fantasy over the years, starting in the mid-sixties. That was when the Ballentine series came out, along with Ace, Daw, and DelRey, the major providers of fantasy and sf. I've found many authors I've enjoyed to the hilt, but few have made as personal impact an impact as Tolkien. The one other fantasy author I would put in this category, and Cailin mentioned him earlier, is T.H. White and The Once and Future King. Interestingly, I recently ran across an interview with Shippey where he talks about his own affinity for White and how White and Tolkien were in some sense similar. Both authors were affected and repelled by the horrors of war in the 20th century, yet recognized the fact that the conditions we face in the world sometimes require good men to stand up and fight. In both White and Tolkien, I sense what difficult dilemmas the world sometimes presents to us and, as I get older, I gain greater appreciation of how these two authors managed to encapsulate this dilemma in the actions and choices of their characters. __________________ Multitasking women are never too busy to vote. Last edited by Child of the 7th Age; 01-25-2006 at 09:42 AM.

01-25-2006, 10:02 AM	#4
Anguirel Byronic Brand Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: The 1590s Posts: 2,778	I am completely with Child about The Once and Future King. However, while many people admire The Sword in the Stone most out of the TH White novels, I must admit to find it, with the posthumously published Book of Merlyn, not nearly as thrilling as the others. The Malory influence is less pervasive, the authorial pieces of fancifulness rather too numerous, the childishness avoiding any real sense of danger, the appearance of Robin Wood in retrospect rather annoying. (Though White's take on Kay's character is fascinating.) The Queen of Air and Darkness, for me, was a real improvement. Battles, vast battles. O Scotland, Scotland. The appearance of the family I most enjoy reading of in White and Malory, the Orkney brothers, Gawaine, Gaheris, Agravaine and Mordred. And in their mother, Morgause, a character of spine-curdling beauty begging to be fleshed out. White described Gawaine as "a swine with a stroke of human decency". I would describe him as "my favourite figure in legend or literature". In the Ill-Made Knight, we see an almost unique construction-the character of Chretien de Troyes' Lancelot modelled first in Malory's image, then in White's. The result is a Lancelot far more likeable than Malory's or Tennyson's, a truly self-doubting creature. The Candle in the Wind lays the blame for Arthur's downfall too heavily on the orkney's, but it is nonetheless incredibly tragic and moving. So...yes, I would put White beside the completely dissimilar Tolkien. They also had this in common. Both left trails, irresistable to me, to wider mythologies; White to Malory's vast yet thoroughly readable, sometimes even touchingly personal, Le Morte D'Arthur; Tolkien of course to the Silmarillion. Devouring both of these, I was not alone in comparing the sons of Feanor to those of Lot and Morgause. I felt great sympathy for both families. I desperately wanted to see them redeemed, but knew I couldn't. Couldn't with Tolkien anyway. But even Malory, great though he is, is just one slant, though indisputably the most comprehensive, on King Arthur. So was born my Gawain novel, working title Hawk of May till I dispiritedly discovered some American lady novelist had pinched it already. Expect it 2038 approx... In conclusion, the greatest fantasy writer is Malory. Then Edmund Spenser. Then conceivably Tolkien/White... __________________ Among the friendly dead, being bad at games did not seem to matter -Il Lupo Fenriso

01-25-2006, 11:59 AM	#5
narfforc Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Muddy-earth Posts: 1,297	It has ever been difficult for me to place my love of all things Arthurian, behind that of Tolkien. I came to read Tolkien after reading childrens books on Arthur ie Roger Lancelyn Green. My interest has grown apace, until I have well over fifty books on the subject of Arthur. I agree with Anguirel, that Malory is a great story teller (one of the best), yet he had source material, on which he expanded. Tolkien took a blueprint and wrote his own story. I am sorry to hear of your Hawk of May story, I have a copy of the Gillian Bradshaw book, and on the back it reads: WILL APPEAL TO THOSE WHO HAVE ENJOYED TOLKIEN'S WORKS. Let me say it did. P.S Sorry Bethberry but I don't see the Bible as the Greatest Story Ever Told. It is The Greatest Myth Ever Invented. Last edited by narfforc; 01-25-2006 at 12:02 PM.

01-26-2006, 06:36 AM	#7
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!