XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien, alt.fan.tolkien
From: ojevind.lang@bredband.net
"Nicholas Young" skrev i meddelandet
news:i2fpk5$4rt$1@speranza.aioe.org...
[snip]
>>>> Tolkien was by his own admission, as I think someone else quoted:
>>>> "a man of limited sympathies (though well aware of them)." He
>>>> would probably have disliked most of the genre in which his work
>>>> is placed,
>>
>> On the other hand he appears to have liked some of the science
>> fiction that was published including Asimov.
He specifically mentions Asimov's stories in a list of things he enjoyed
reading. (Letter 294.) The appreciation was mutual, by the way. Asimov wrote
a Black Widower tale specifically as an homage to Tolkien, on hearing of his
death.
>> How much, I wonder, can be derived from what (quite possible very
>> little) we know about his sym- and antipathies? Can we begin to get
>> some idea of what it was that he liked in a book and what he actively
>> disliked? Hmmm -- perhaps a new thread devoted to Tolkien's literary
>> tastes?
>
> I'm up for it - though my participation is and will remain erratic.
Sounds like an excellent idea.
>>>> including that small number of works that Tolkien-lovers consider
>>>> close in stature to the master
>>
>> I wonder which authors might fall in this group at all?
>
> I have two or three ... well, maybe one - see below.
>
>>> Yes, I have to say that most Tolkien imitators fail utterly.....
>>
>> I'm not as widely read as some in these groups, but I can't think of
>> any Tolkien _imitator_ that does not fail utterly: possibly because
>> there is something in the very attempt to imitate _Tolkien_ that
>> makes it impossible?
Imitations remain just that - imitations, with no independent life. The only
exception I can think of is Edward Eager, who back in the '50s and '60s
wrote books that were very obviously imitations of E. Nesbit's stories, and
yet quite good. His story about a toy city come to life is actually better
than Nesbit's. (I suspect Nesbit was writing the instalments of her story
with the boy from the newspaper waiting at the door for them, as was often
the case with her.) Eager's "Half Magic" is particularly good.
> Of course, I carefully didn't say "imitators" ... I agree with you,
> Troels, that imitators will always pretty much fail, though not so much
> because there's anything unique about Tolkien _in this respect_; merely
> because imitation implies a lack of original thought. (Tributes of course
> are another matter; there authors may acknowledge their debt to a master
> and yet have something of their own to say.)
An excellent point. Writers of cheap fantasy are a dime a dozen now, and I
have become very leery of new fantasy writers. I circle around them like a
cat in the book shops, sniffing at them and mostly deciding to skip them.
They are almost always presented like this on the backside:
"The evil Trasks are once more amassing to assail the Empire of Quorn. The
empire, torn by a power struggle between the wise but feeble Smo'oks and the
ingenious but ruthless Clo'oks, can only be saved by apprentice magician
Kruddyan. But will Kruddyan reach the sacred temple of Gruwel in time to
salvage the sacred sword which he needs to vanquish his enemies? His only
allies are the mutated, talking cat Tabbi and the half-crazed crone
Hagalyn."
And then a quotation from some reviewer, going something like this:
"In the same class as Tolkien and Eddings at their best."
[snip]
>>> It might be interesting to compile a list of authors others think
>>> capture "tolkienian spirit" in their novels....not your favorites
>>> per se, but those authors you think get Tolkien.
>>
>> I presume we're talking about reasonably modern authors (twentieth
>> and twentyfirst centuries)? One of the best places, in my opinion, to
>> go for stories that contain much of the same 'air' as Tolkien's work
>> is to read the old myths and legends: sagas, eddas, Kalevala, etc.
>> etc.
I must respectfully disagree here. Tolkien used many narrative devices that
simply had not been invented back in the times of the great myths and
legends. They were of course an inspiration to him, but his writing is
actually very different from them.
>> Asimov, in my opinion, is one of the authors (of those that I know)
>> that come closest in terms of the sub-creation's power to command
>> Secondary Belief.
>
> I'm very fond of Asimov, but (as with Agatha Christie whom I also enjoy)
> it's rather difficult to explain why. The characters are, with a very few
> exceptions, one-dimensional and unconvincing; the writing is good but far
> from excellent; the societies are not usually plausible and the science is
> good but again not wonderful, especially when he gets away from physics.
> I think it's simply the extent of his imagination that compels one, but of
> course more is needed than just that. _Foundation_ is arguably his
> greatest work, but once outside the gripping narrative it's clear what a
> load of nonsense the foundational principle of psycho-history really is,
> and the inconsistencies that abound in the descriptions of the power of
> the mind. That doesn't stop me re-reading it with great enjoyment, but I
> would need something more to call it really great.
>
> Probably the real issue with Asimov is that his work doesn't engage the
> deep emotions; one doesn't actually learn anything important from him
> . And this is true of a large number of
> writers of both hard SF and fantasy.
I agree, and as for the Foundation books, I only like the original trilogy;
the later books are all part of his rather horrible attempt to shoehorn all
his writings into a single unified future history; he tired to place "The
Currents of Space" and other two "Galactic Empire" novels, the Galactic
Empire Series, the robot books, the stories about Elijah Baley and the
Foundation trilogy i the same universe - and that stufff simply does not fit
comfortably together. (Also, his vitality as a writer was in decline when he
started writing the later Foundation stories.)
However, Asimov did write one short story which I think is truly moving
and engaging on the human plane, and that is "The Ugly Little Boy".
> So ... those I can think of at present who seem to share something of the
> Tolkien spirit, while not necessarily achieving the same level of mastery,
> are:
> C .S. Lewis
> Charles Williams (possibly)
> E. R. Eddison (but only in _The Worm Ouroborous_)
> John Christopher (children's writer, notably _The Tripods_ and _Prince in
> Waiting_ trilogies)
> Lord Dunsany
> Terry Brooks
> Poul Anderson (ranges between hard SF and fantasy)
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
