Trampling the legacy, remaking the myth

Top 3. Feb 5, 2001 11:32 AM

» Michael_Martinez - Re: Building a better Fantasy story

In response to message posted by proudfoot:

Well, I thought I'd addressed this issue at some length. The magic systems are one of my chief complaints. There are some novels which have forced love stories on the readers. That is, the romance or relationship is not the point of the story, but the hero (or heroine) gets a lover.

The grittiness of modern Fantasists is another weakness in the genre. The pseudo-realism often ruins the story. Fantasy is at its best when it's larger than life, but not unbelievably so (that is, the author can't just superimpose a godlike characteristic on the heroes).

One of the worst scenes I recall from SHANNARA (or maybe a later book) is one where a dwarf faces down a large group of foes on his own. They are terrified of him. Sorry. That's not Fantasy.

Eddings' characters tend to come across as rather immature. The wizards are biting and critical but not in the distant sort of way, and there is way too much sexual banter. The old epics which inspired modern Fantasy weren't all driveled up with sex the way modern stories are. A good story may be about sex, but a good story doesn't need sex otherwise.

-- posted by Michael_Martinez

Top 4. Feb 5, 2001 11:35 AM

» Michael_Martinez - Re: Re: Building a better Fantasy story

In response to message posted by lindil:

It's been a while since I've looked at the Barrowdowns discussions but I regard "The Ruin of Doriath" to be a failure for several reasons. One is that it departs from JRRT's intentions considerably, and no matter how well Christopher seems to have mimicked his father's style, its purpose was to tell a specific story.

Unless people start rewriting The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit from different perspectives, I'm not really asking for rewrites of Tolkien. I just think that the principles of story development and story telling which Tolkien learned and adapted for his own use would serve other authors well.

-- posted by Michael_Martinez

Top 5. Feb 5, 2001 2:21 PM

» proudfoot - On D&D & Tolkien...

As I recall, D&D was not drawn too heavily from Tolkien's works. Gygax & friends took some races from The Hobbit & LOTR as extra material, but that wasn't their main interest. They were more into Sword & Sorcery type stories, a la Robert Howard, Fritz Leiber, and Jack Vance. The average D&D adventure is a lot like an average Conan story; party of "heroic" hard-cases quaffing ale at the tavern get together to pick over some old ruin for loot & magic items so they can score with chicks in chain-mail bikinis. Not a whole lot of questing and high-moral tone adventures there... A lot of D&D players HAVE read Tolkien (or heard others talk about reading it, just like the Bible ^_^) so they put in surface elements from his stories that they know, with the races reduced to S&S stereotypes (snooty Elves, berserker Dwarves, spear fodder Orcs, etc). The result is a generic "fantasy" world that a lot of ex-D&D gamers remember when they decided to write the Big Fantasy Trilogy.

Now ICE did publish Middle Earth Role Playing (MERP) an interesting game set directly in Middle-Earth. The game allowed for more direct Tolkien-style role-playing, and tried to be faithful to the original when possible. (Best thing about the game books are their beautiful, detailed color maps.)The efforts of the writers to create a comprehensive world view for Middle-Earth circa AD 1640 could be counted as supplementary work. Then again, a Tolkien purist might not even like MERP as a way of story-telling with Tolkien elements. Ever play MERP, Michael?

-- posted by proudfoot

Top 6. Feb 5, 2001 2:42 PM

» proudfoot - in response to lindil

I'm not sure I want to recognize Christopher Tolkien as a writer. He always was the master editor to me, the man who cared enough to dive into his father's stash of papers to let the fans see eveything the Professor left behind, and let everybody realize just how comprehensive a world-view Tolkien had developed. I suppose that if one wanted to be technical, then filling in missing scenes in Tolkien's stories could stand as adding a creative element. I think that gap-filling really isn't a seperate act of writing since the original idea and framework come from somebody else. It's not like H.P. Lovecraft's ghost-written stories, where he reworked other people's uninspired rough drafts into salable stories.

Of course, after saying that, I was surprised to learn that Christopher had written "The Ruin of Doriath" mainly from whole cloth. Overall he did a good job of plugging a hole in the storyline with a comprehensible story. In hindsight now, there is a lack of detail in most of the chapter that is not present in the others, which argues it to be a hastily-written filler. The most Tolkien-like part of it is the opening pages where Hurin leaves Angband and journeys to Doriath. His successive displays of pride and humility in Thingol's court show a brave spirit uncrushed by imprisonment, despair, and age. The rest of the chapter lacks Tolkien's recurring theme of heroism in the face of adversity. Instead, it is a dreary, heart-breaking account of greed and bloodshed without good purpose or result. Morgoth does nothing to the Free Peoples in this part of the Silmarillion, unless it is to laugh while his foes destroy each other.(I remember a couple of time when I finished the chapter and wondered exactly why the Big Shiny Stones were worth this much trouble to everyone, either to own or to seek.)The fate of Dior's sons was especially cruel and unlike the Noldor of Tolkien, even in a Silmaril-induced frenzy. I suppose Christopher could justify the chapter as showing the ultimate fulfillment of the Ban of the Valar, and the source of the Elves' hard-won wisdom that they abundantly dispense in LOTR.

-- posted by proudfoot

Top 7. Feb 5, 2001 4:56 PM

» lindil - Re: in response to lindil

In response to message posted by proudfoot:

I supose I need to qualify the whole cloth concept a bit.
The major landmarks were there from a 30's version [HoME 4]{Nauglimir/Hurin's Melkor inspired Bi-Polarism/departure of Melian/attack and slaing by Dwarves / but the details of the storyline [where the dwarves killed thingol-how the nauglimir got there / the nature of the dwarves anger etc. preceding it, had become impossibly confused by the time JRRT stopped working on the Silm, and CRT came to the conclusion that any attempt to publish the Silm in a finished form would have to include a new version of 'the Ruin'.
som aspects of it he has said he 'views with regret' , and of course w/ hindsight he would do things differently. What I commend him on is not the details he took liberty with , but the skill w/ which he wove his chapter into what was essentially his fathers book.

BTW , I just reread 'the ruin ' and to my mind seems no more compressed than the rest of the Silm. It is not told in detail like the first 2 stories of Unfinished Tales and much of the later versions and elaboraitive material in in HoME 10 and 11, butmost of the Silm. writing of JRRT is a compressed and revised form of the Book Of Lost Tales

-- posted by lindil

Top 8. Feb 6, 2001 12:54 AM

» Qin - Re: Building a better Fantasy story

Having read....way too many fantasy novels (You never know what is enough until you know what is more than enough), I've found that frankly, I'm a little more than sick of dwarves, elves, etc. I will agree with you on the fact that they have become cliched beings. I'm not certain who's to originally blame, TSR, Terry Brooks, etc. It'd be unfair to lay blame in any one place.
If you notice popular culture, when something strikes gold, others try to immitate it. Thus, when Star Wars hit paydirt, suddenly we had Battlestar: Galactica, Black Hole, etc.
It's innevitable, it's human nature, and it's something I'v grown used to.
Whereas the old generation of writers reused Tolkien's ideas, the new generation of writers are (some) reusing Jordan's myths. Terry Brooks is to Tolkien as Goodkind is to Jordan.
I myself do not believe we need anymore Tolkien rewrites. I'd much rather that writers move in a different direction. I forgive Dragonlance on the basis that the Chronicles, Legends, and War of the Souls books have a colorful cast of characters that I myself care for deeply.
Anyhow, the only writer who seems to fullfill the desire you have is Dennis McKiernan, a little known writer who kever recieves due credit, perhaps because his books are far too similar to Tolkien (one needs only to read the Hel's Crucible Duology to understand that), but his writing style nonetheless is similar to Tolkien's, if not a bit less dense.
The fantasy genre is on the upswing right now. We have a variety of writers attempting to go in a different direction than the norm, and I'm grateful for that. I site George Martin, Robert Jordan, Robin Hobb, Tad Williams, Gregory Keyes, David Wingrove, and Anne McCaffrey as my evidence. Each and every one of these writers has written something that has taken the fantasy genre outside of the Tolkien sub-category (anyone who considers fantasy to have been 'created' by Tolkien is in serious need of a reality check) and into new territory. Were they inspired by Tolkien? Maybe, maybe not. I can certainly say that his work has no immediate impact upon my writing as I did not like Lord of the Rings one bit; I actally prefer The Silmarillion, but only if Blind Guardian's Nightfall in Middle Earth is blaring in the backround.
I will state that I have read several Forgotten Realms novels and enjoyed them on a very basic entertainment level of reading. R.A. Salvatore paints wonderful scenic pictures in his writing, as does Elaine Cunningham, who has a much more lyrical style of writing. I can't comment on Ed Greenwood, the founding father of Aber-Toril/The Forgotten Realms, which is undeniably, a fun place to visit. Just load up Baldur's Gate I and II, Icewind Dale, The Tale of the Sword Coast, or the upcoming Heart of Winter to see for yourself.
Consider this, and honestly, think about this before letting your emotions overtake you and lead to my being flamed: If there's anyone to blame for ruining the fantasy genre, it's not D&D, it's not Terry Brooks, or David Eddings, it's Tolkien himself.
Then again, I have Tolkien to thank for the wonder drug known as EverQuest, so maybe he's not so bad afterall...

-Qin-

-- posted by Qin

Top 9. Feb 6, 2001 4:52 PM

» proudfoot - Re: Re: Building a better Fantasy story

In response to message posted by Qin:

No, I won't flame you, Qin. If LOTR wasn't your favorite thing, I can deal with it. Blame Tolkien for second-rate Heroic Fantasy and its commercialization in the last couple of decades? Hell, no. The dear old man was in his grave before Terry Brooks decided to become a writer. What are you gonna do? I dunno, maybe...read something else. ^_^

Actually Tolkien himself defied his own pigeon-holing, now that I think of it. The Hobbit, LOTR, and The Silmarillion all have some stylistic differences in them, they are not cut from the same piece of creative cloth. Some of the stories from Unfinished Tales stand apart from the stereotype as well. ("The Tale of Eldarion and Erendis" is considerably different from the bulk of Tolkien's writings. It is still a good tale, though.)

I like George R. Martin's new Fantasy series too. It pays some tribute to Tolkien, but there is equal tribute to Froissart's Chronicles and the Arthurian Cycle too. Martin is ultimately telling his own story and having a good time with it. Tad Williams is pretty good too, although I haven't finished his trilogy yet...some day, I guess.

There is a good Tolkien-derived short story out there, which only came to mind today. It is "When the Last Elf Is Dead", by Harry Turtledove. (He tweaks enough details to avoid plaigarism, but his inspiration is very obvious.) It departs from the usual track by seeing the action from the eyes of a captain in the Dark Lord's army. Turtledove does a good job of imagining the unimaginable, Evil triumphant, with a last pointed judgement on those who think they can do good service for a bad master and be blessed for it.

-- posted by proudfoot

Top 10. Feb 7, 2001 1:08 PM

» mkletch - Re: Re: Re: Building a better Fantasy story

In response to message posted by proudfoot:

After reading this article, I have a feeling that there is something profound here that we are all missing; the comments are close but not on target.

For starters, the professor is dead. There is not much we can do except move on and occasionally look back. Tolkien was rare in that he was a legend while he was still alive. Let's wait until Jordan and Eddings have been dead for fifty years and see how popular they will be (if at all). All we can hope is that each book we read is entertaining in some way. On the other hand, life is full of disappointments of other sorts, so why should fantasy fiction be any different.

Of books that try storytelling in a different fashion from Tolkien (e.g. Jordan), I have mixed feelings. The 'new standard' has not been discovered, yet. New and existing authors need to try, and we need to read - only persistence and luck will get us where we want/need to go.

As for faulting role-playing systems, I would rather 'blame' the players that are either too lazy, from a creative standpoint, to do something different from stereotypes with their roleplaying, or they are too rushed in their need for escapism of any sort to put the time into it. It's just a reflection of our societies on a larger level.

Enough for my rant...

-- posted by mkletch

Top 11. Feb 7, 2001 3:20 PM

» Michael_Martinez - Re: Re: Re: Re: Building a better Fantasy story

In response to message posted by mkletch:

Either folks are missing the point or I failed to make it. I'm not calling for people to write more imitation stories. I'm calling for people to go back to the basics of story-telling, the way Tolkien did.

There is a very big difference between the two. And I tried to cite examples of authors who succeed, such as C.J. Cherryh. Someone mentioned Roger Zelazny on another forum, and I agree that he is a good example, too.

What all these writers have in common is that they don't follow the cliches. They don't try to serve up something that fits a formula (unless it is their own formula). They take a premise and tell a story and follow it wherever the story goes.

They are not REACTING to a previous author, either by trying to emulate his work or refute it.

BTW -- I've reformatted the last two articles posted. I must have done something weird when I edited them yesterday.

-- posted by Michael_Martinez